Honble SHARMA, J.–Common prayer of the petitioner company in the instant writ petitions is as under -

(a) to declare that the Rajasthan Excise Amendment Rules 1998 and Section 31 of the Rajasthan Excise Act 1950 are ultra vires, invalid and not enforceable.

(b) to declare that item No. 14 which prescribes fee for permission to manufacture/bottle IMFL/Beer on franchise agreement and Rule 69(2)(b) which prescribes fee for licence to bottle foreign liquor in case of manufacture of brands of other unit under franchise arrangement is ultravires, invalid, void and unenforceable.

(c) to quash the demand raised by the respondents vide their letters dated October 30, 2000 and March 29, 2001.

(d) to restrain the respondents from imposing any further levy in further under Rule 69(2)(b) and 68(14) of the Rajasthan Excise Rules.

(2). Rule 69(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Excise Rules 1956 (for short 1956 Rules) after being amended vide Notification No. F.4(18) FD/Ex/98 dated 9.7.1998 authorised the Respondents to levy higher fees-

-for license to bottle foreign liquor in case of manufacturing of brands of other units under franchise arrangement in terms of Rule 69(2)(b).

-for permission to manufacture/bottle Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL)/Beer on franchise operations in terms of Rule 68(14).

(3). As per the averments of the writ petitions the petitioner company is a subsidiary of Allied Domeeq U.K. and not an independent entity by itself. It is just an extension of Allied Domeeq Group in India. For better protection of the trademarks in India vis-a-vis third parties, a Trademark User Agreement was entered into between the petitioner company and Allied Domeeq U.K. whereby it was granted the right to use the trademarks `Teachers, `Long John and `Old Smuggler. The respondents have erroneously construed the agreement to be Franchise Agreement. The brands are bottled by the petitioner company for its own unit and to be sold in its own name and not for another unit therefore the impugned demand notice are completely illegal, arbitrary and ultravires the Rules.

(4). The petitioner company also pleaded that the aforequoted amendment made in Rules 69 of 1956 Rules with respect to fee for permission to manufacture/bottle IMFL/Beer on Franchise arrangement and fee for license to bottle foreign liquor in case of manufacturing of brands of another unit under franchise arrangement is ultravires and contrary to the provision of Article 265 and 14 of the Constitution of India. The imposition of levy and demand and collection of fee in the manner stated above in case of manufacture of IMFL/Beer under franchise arrangement. Whether it is for other unit or not is ultravires, illegal, improper, unjust arbitrary and discriminatory. Further contention of the petitioner company is that Section 31 of the Rajasthan Excise Act 1950 (for short 1950 Act) purports to be a charging section. By virtue of Article 265 of the Constitution, it is well settled that a compulsory taxation in the nature of a fee can only be, levied under the authority of law. Compulsory taxation has to be levied directly by the Legislature and a delegate acting pursuant to a legislative mandate, can only prescribe the procedure for collection of such levies. The levy as such can not be prescribed by way of Rule in as much as the levy reflects the essential part of legislature can not be delegated and can be exercised only by a sovereign legislative body. Thus in so far as Section 31 seeks to empower the said authority to prescribe by way of rules, the rate at which the statutory fee to be levied is violative of Article 14 and 265 of the Constitution. Section 31 is also unconstitutional on the ground that it does not spell out any guidelines to exercise the power to levy a fiscal charge. Levy of fee for bottling of alcoholic liquors meant for human consumption with the aid of Entry 66 of List II of Ten Schedule to the Constitution is clearly unconstitutional as far as excise duty is concerned. The petitioner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document