Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Before Ashim Kumar Banerjee And Tapas Kumar Giri, JJ.
SHAW BROTHERS (WINE) LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
F. M. A. 1335 Of 1989
Decided On : 07/03/2007
LIQUOR LICENSE - EXCISE DUTY - FEE - VALIDITY - ARREAR DEMAND - Bengal Excise Act, 1909 (Ben. Act V of 1909), Ss. 22, 27, 86(7) - Bengal Excise Rules, 1915, Rr. 21, 22 - Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 266 - The State is entitled to levy fee for reimbursement of the proportionate expenses for maintaining infrastructure at the warehouse only when there would be quid proquo. In case it is proved that such fee has a co-relation and nexus with the services rendered such imposition is lawful and cannot be said to be ultra vires the Act of 1909 of the Constitution. However, the State is not entitled to collect any arrear demand under Rule 22 of the Bengal Excise Rules, 1915.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a private warehouse, was granted a license under the Bengal Excise Act, 1909, to store foreign liquor without payment of duty on the condition that such duty may be paid at the selling point. The State, by virtue of the power derived from Section 86 of the Act, framed Rule 22 in 1915 being the Bengal Excise Rules under Section 86. Rule 22 empowers the Collector to employ officers and/or staff to supervise collection of duty at the selling point. Under sub-rule (a) the warehouse owner is to pay the estimated cost of such expenditure for three months in advance as a fee. Under sub-rule (b) the warehouse would have to also pay a monthly fee equivalent to monthly cost within 7 days after the expiry of the month to which such fee relates. The appellant challenged the validity of Rule 22 and the demand for arrear fee raised by the State.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Rule 22 was not ultra vires the Act or the Constitution and the Authority was within their power to recover any outstanding by way of arrear or otherwise. However, the Court held that the State was not entitled to collect any arrear demand under Rule 22 of the Bengal Excise Rules, 1915.
Issues: 1. Whether Rule 22 of the Bengal Excise Rules, 1915 was ultra vires the Bengal Excise Act, 1909? 2. Whether the State was entitled to collect any arrear demand under Rule 22 of the Bengal Excise Rules, 1915?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the imposition of fee for reimbursement of the proportionate expenses for maintaining infrastructure at the warehouse would be permissible only when there would be quid proquo. In case it is proved that such fee has a co-relation and nexus with the services rendered such imposition is lawful and cannot be said to be ultra vires the Act of 1909 of the Constitution. In the present case, the Court found that there was a co-relation between the services rendered and the fee levied and, therefore, held that Rule 22 was not ultra vires the Act. 2. The Court held that there was no provision for collection of any arrear payment under Rule 22 of the Bengal Excise Rules, 1915. The Court also held that it would be unfair and unjust to impose such arrear demand on the warehouse owner as it would be impossible for them to recover the same from various buyers for the sales which stood concluded long before.
Final Decision: The Court quashed and set aside the arrear demand impugned in the writ petition and directed the Registry to refund the amount covered under the impugned arrear demand being Rs. 10,285.71 so deposited by the appellant in terms of the order of the court along with interest accrued, if any, to them.
( 1 ) UNDER the Bengal Excise Act, 1909 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act of 1909") The State is empowered, inter alia, to regulate manufacture and sale of liquor. Under Section 27 of the said Act of 1909 excise duty can be imposed on any excisable article under the Act as and when the same is manufactured and taken out from the manufactory for sale and/or consumption. Under Section 22 State Government is entitled to grant any person exclusive privilege for manufacture and sale of liquor on the terms and conditions mentioned in the license.
( 2 ) APPELLANT before us, a private warehouse was issued a license in form 28a. Under the conditions of licence the appellant was given a special privilege to store foreign liquor in the said warehouse with the pre-condition that excise duty leviable on the said liquor might be paid at the time of sale of the liquor. By virtue of such privilege the appellant need not have to pay the excise duty and/or countervailing duty at the time of bottling and/or import and they were allowed to store foreign liquor without payment of duty under the said Act which was to be paid at the time of actual sale from the warehouse. For the purpose of regulating such collection of duty at the selling point the State was to maintain infrastructure at the warehouse itself by engaging supervisory staff. For that purpose State was entitled to impose fee in addition to the duty by way of reimbursement of the infrastructural costs. Such imposition of fee is permitted under Section 86 of the said Act and the rules made thereunder. Section 86 (7) provides as follows : - "s. 86. Further power of State Government to make rules.- The state Government may make rules - (7) for prescribing the scale of fees or the manner of fixing the fees payable in respect of any exclusive privilege granted under Section 22 or any license, permit or pass granted under this Act, or in respect of the storing of any intoxicant ;"
( 3 ) STATE by virtue of the power derived from Section 86 framed Rule in 1915 being the Bengal Excise Rules under Section 86. Rules 21 and 22 being relevant herein are quoted below : -
"21. Private warehouses.- Persons desirous of obtaining licenses to establish private warehouses, for the deposit and storage of spirit other than country spirit without payment of duty or fee shall apply to the Collector concerned, who shall not grant the license without the previous order of the Commissioner. Rules 2 to 4 shall apply mutates mutandis to such applications, except that the amount of the security shall be Rs. 250. 22. Establishment for supervision of private warehouses.- The collector shall employ such officers and establishment as the commissioner may direct to the charge of a private warehouse. The licensee of the warehouse shall pay to Government.- (a) in advance a fee in cash equivalent to the estimated cost of such officers and establishment for three months as the Commissioner may fix, and (b) monthly a fee in cash equivalent to the monthly cost, which the Commissioner may fix, within seven days after the expiry of the month to which the fee relates. In computing the cost of officers and establishment, the average of the pay (including special pay, if any) of officers and establishment, the contribution towards leave salary and pension and the compensatory allowance shall be included. "
( 4 ) THE appellant was given appropriate permission under Rule 21 to establish warehouse for the purpose of storage of liquor without payment of duty on the condition that such duty may be paid at the selling point.
( 5 ) RULE 22 empowers the Collector to employ officers and/or staff to supervise collection of duty at the selling point. Under sub-rule (a) the warehouse owner is to pay the estimated cost of such expenditure for three months in advance as a fee. Under sub-rule (b) the warehouse would have to also pay a monthly fee equivalent to monthly cost within 7 days after the expiry of the m
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
