Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.P.JEEVAN REDDY
Siri Cellars Pvt.Ltd, Vijayawada represented by ts Managing Director G.S.Raju - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. by the Commissioner of Excise - Respondent
Decided On : 01-18-79
ANDHRA PRADESH EXCISE ACT, 1968 - RULE 14 - Retrospective operation - Validity - Rule 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Distillery Rules, 1970, which was substituted with retrospective effect from 30-8-1968, is valid. The rule-making authority has the power to give retrospective effect to delegated legislation. The obligation to pay the establishment charges is a condition subject to which the license is granted and it is neither an excise duty nor a fee. The amended Rule 14 clearly makes the said obligation a consideration for grant of right to manufacture intoxicants and it has been made with retrospective effect.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who are licensees of distilleries, challenged the retrospective operation given to Rule 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Distillery Rules, 1970, which was introduced by Government Memo dated 27-3-1978. The petitioners contended that they are not liable to pay the salaries and allowances of the Excise Department staff posted at the distillery, relying on a Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Anabeshahi Wine and Distilleries vs. State (AIR 1972, Andhra Pradesh 379).
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the rule-making authority has the power to give retrospective effect to delegated legislation. The obligation to pay the establishment charges is a condition subject to which the license is granted and it is neither an excise duty nor a fee. The amended Rule 14 clearly makes the said obligation a consideration for grant of right to manufacture intoxicants and it has been made with retrospective effect. The Court also held that the decision in Anabeshahi Wine and Distilleries vs. State (AIR 1972, Andhra Pradesh 379) is not applicable in the present case as the amended Rule 14 has made a basic change in the situation by treating the obligation to pay the establishment charges as a consideration for grant of license.
Issues: 1. Whether the rule-making authority has the power to give retrospective effect to delegated legislation? 2. Whether the obligation to pay the establishment charges is a condition subject to which the license is granted and it is neither an excise duty nor a fee? 3. Whether the amended Rule 14 has made a basic change in the situation by treating the obligation to pay the establishment charges as a consideration for grant of license?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the rule-making authority has the power to give retrospective effect to delegated legislation. This is because Section 72(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 expressly empowers the rule-making authority to make a rule with retrospective effect. 2. The Court held that the obligation to pay the establishment charges is a condition subject to which the license is granted and it is neither an excise duty nor a fee. This is because Section 28(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 empowers the Government to impose restrictions and conditions on the grant of licenses, including the payment of establishment charges. 3. The Court held that the amended Rule 14 has made a basic change in the situation by treating the obligation to pay the establishment charges as a consideration for grant of license. This is because the amended Rule 14 expressly states that the salaries and allowances of the Excise staff posted at the distillery shall be payable as part of the consideration for granting the privilege of distillation of spirits in which the Government have monopoly.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed.
( 1 ) IN this batch of writ petitions the validity of the retrospective operation given to Rule 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Distillery Rules, 1970 introduced by Government Memo dated 27-3-1978, is called in question. The prior existing Rule 14 was substituted altogether. This amendment was brought forth during the pendency of the first writ petition. Necessary amendments have therefore been made to the writ petition challenging the said amendment. Since the other writ petitions also raise the same question, all of them were heard together.
( 2 ) THE dispute pertains to the liability of the licensee of a distillery to pay the salaries and allowances of the Excise Department staff posted at the distillery. The petitioners contend, on the basis of a Bench decision of this Court in Anabeshahi Wine and Distilleries vs. State (AIR 1972, Andhra Pradesh 379), that they are not liable to pay the charges. The said decision was rendered with reference to the rule position obtaining prior to the amendment aforesaid. For a proper appreciation of the question at issue, it is necessary to notice certain provisions of the Act and the relevant Rules.
( 3 ) THE Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the production manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale of intoxicating liquor and drugs, the levy of duties of excise and countervailing duties, and to provide for matters connected therewith. Clause (10) in Section 2 defines the expression excise duty and countervailing duty in the following words:"excise duty" or "countervailing duty" means the duty of excise or countervailing duty, as the case may be, mentioned in entry 51 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. "according to Clause (26) in Section 2, prescribed means prescribed by rules made under the Act.
( 4 ) CHAPTER IV deals with manufacture, possession and of intoxicating liquors. According to Section 13, no person shall manufacture an intoxicant except under the authority and subject to the terms and conditions of a licence granted by the prescribed officer. Section 16 empowers the commissioner to issue a licence, with the previous sanction of the government, for the construction and working of a distillery or brewery. Sec. 21 deals with levy of excise duty and countervailing duty on excisable articles, while Section 22 prescribes the modes of levying the excise duty mentioned in Section 21. It would be appropriate to set out Sections 21 and 22 in so far as they are relevant for the present purpose.-"21. (1) The Government may, by notification, levy an excise duty on any excisable article manufactured or produced in the State at such rate, not exceeding the rates mentioned in the Schedule,, as may be specified in the Notification. 22. The excise duty and countervailing duty under section 21 shall be levied in one or more of the following modes : (a) rateably, on the quantity of any excisable article produced or manufactured in or issued from a distillery, brewery or manufactory or ware-house or imported into the State: (b) in the case of spirits or other liquors produced in any distillery, brewery or manufactory in accordance with its quality or strength or in accordance with such scale of equivalents calculated on the quantity of materials used, or by the degree or attenuation of the wash or wort, as the case may be, prescribed; (c) in the case of toddy, in the form of a tax on each variety of excise tree from which toddy is drawn having due regard to the period during which such tree is capable of yielding toddy; (d) by fees or licences for the manufacture, supply or sale of any excisable articles. "
( 5 ) CHAPTER VI deals with licences and permits. Section 28 is crucial and may, therefore, be set out in full :"28. (1) Every permit issued or licence granted under this Act shall be issued or granted on payment of such fees, for such period, subject to such restrictions and conditions, and
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.