SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(HP) 28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.
M/s Tiloksons Brewery and Distillery – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others – Respondents
CWP No. 16382 of 2025
Decided On : 02-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sunil Mohan Goel, Paras Dhaulta
For the Respondents: Y.P.S. Dhaulta, L.N. Sharma, Seema Sharma

Procedural lapses in the constitution of inspection teams under the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act invalidate administrative actions, emphasizing the necessity for adherence to established legal frameworks for inspections and license cancellations.

Headnote:(A) Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, 2011 - Sections 29 and 68 - Cancelation of licensing permits - Petitioner’s licenses D-2 and L-11 canceled based on procedural issues during surprise inspections. Inspection team lacked proper constitution as mandated by law, leading to flawed administrative process. (Paras 2, 4, 5)

(B) Administrative procedure - The interruption of due process and lack of opportunity to appeal against recommendations constitutes a foundational flaw in the legality of actions taken. (Paras 4, 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, licensed to manufacture liquor under the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, faced cancellation of their licenses due to allegations of unauthorized liquor production. A surprise inspection was conducted without adherence to statutory procedural requirements. The petitioner claimed their rights to appeal were undermined during these proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The court found that while procedural lapses were noted in the inspection team's constitution, the overall process leading to the cancellation was flawed as the required procedures and opportunities for defense were not adequately provided to the petitioner.

Issues: The main issues included the legitimacy of the inspection team's formation and the violation of cancellation procedures pertaining to license appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that for lawful exercise of inspection powers, compliance with statutory frameworks is critical; flaws in the procedure can vitiate substantive outcomes. The ruling emphasized the need for impartial consideration of cases by the licensing authority free from prior recommendations that may bias the outcome.

Result: The impugned order of cancellation was quashed and set aside, allowing the Commissioner to conduct an independent review of the case. Future inspections must align with legal provisions.

Table of Content
1. petitioner’s licenses cancellation process. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments on inspection legality. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's observations on procedural fairness. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT :

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.

1. Petitioner had been licensed to manufacture Indian Made Foreign Spirit & Country Liquor in the Distillery at Mainthappal, Kala Amb, District Sirmour, H.P. Petitioner held various licenses under Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, 2011 in Forms D-2, L-11, L-1A, L-1C, L-13C, L-15 & L-16 for the year 2025-26. Its grievance is against the order dated 02.06.2025 (Annexure P-11) passed by Collector (Excise)-cum-Additional Commissioner State Taxes & Excise, South Zone, Shimla - respondent No. 3, recommending to Commissioner State Taxes & Excise-cum-Financial Commissioner (Excise) Himachal Pradesh - respondent No. 2 cancellation of petitioner’s licenses in Forms D-2 & L-11 and also against the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the Commissioner State Taxes & Excise-cum-Financial Commissioner (Excise), H.P.-respondent No. 2 cancelling the petitioner’s licenses in Forms D-2 and L-11 (Annexure P-15).

2. Facts necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition are as under:

(i) Based upon an information, respondent No. 2 - Commissioner State Taxes & Excise on 30.04.2025 constituted the following team under the leadership of Additional Commissioner (IT, EIU & Enforcement) for conducting a surprise inspection of petitioner’s unit:-

“1) Sh. Himanshu Panwar, Dy. Commissioner Excise Sirmour.

2) Sh. Aman Sophat, ACSTE o/o JCSTE Central Zone Una.

3) Sh. Sachin, ACSTE Nalagarh-II.

4) Sh. Anurag Garg, ACSTE Bilaspur.

5) Sh. Kuldeep Singh, ACSTE Nalagarh-III.

6) Sh. Rupinder Singh, STEO, BBN Baddi.

7) Sh. Manoj Kumar, STEO o/o JCSTE Central Zone Una

8) Sh. Manoj Sacdeva, ASTEO, SZ, Parwanoo.”

Petitioner’s premises were inspected by the team on 04.05.2025. Inspection report (Annexure P-2) was submitted by respondent No. 4 - the Deputy Commissioner State Taxes & Excise, District Sirmour regarding surprise inspection of petitioner’s premises on 04.05.2025 at about 2.00 a.m. conducted as per orders of respondent No. 2 under the leadership of Sh. U.S. Rana, Additional Commissioner State Taxes & Excise (Enforcement) HQ Shimla by a team consisting of following officers:-

“1. Sh. Himanshu R. Panwar, DC, STE, Sirmour, HP. 2. Sh. Sachin, AC, STE, Nalagarh-II.

3. Sh. Anurag Garg, AC, STE, Bilaspur.

4. Sh. Aman Sophat, AC, STE, CZ, Una.

5. Sh. Kuldeep Singh, AC, STE, Nalagarh-III.

6. Sh. Manoj Kumar, STEO, CZ, Una.

7. Sh. Rupender Singh, STEO, BBN.

8. Sh. Manoj Sacdeva, ASTEO, SZ, Parwanoo.”

The report inter alia mentions that the team reached the licensed premises at about 2:00 a.m. on 04.05.2025 and found unauthorized manufacturing of liquor with labels of different brands namey ‘Royal Blue’ meant for sale in Uttrakhand; Labour force of around 20 people working on bottling chain; Labels of country liquor brand namely ‘Santra’ for sale in Uttrakhand, Artisian Dry Zin blended and bottled by Plot No. 124 Rudrapur, Uttrakhand were found; PP caps embossed with ‘Shivalik Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh Excise’ were also found; A truck was fund stationed in the premises loaded with PET bottles. During inspection, the team telephonically contacted State Taxes & Excise Officer (STEO) Incharge and was directed to reach the premises. The STEO reached the premises at about 4:20 a.m. and was associated during inspection. The inspecting team found the licensee to have contravened the provisions of Sections 39 (1)(a), 39(2)(i) and 39(2)(iii) of the H.P. Excise Act, 2011 as also Punjab Distillery Rules 1932 by indulging in:-

‘1. Carrying out bottling operations after designated hours in un-authorized manner;

2 Bottling of illegal brands without approval of the designated authorities;

3. Illegal transportation, storage and possession of ENA for manufacturing of liquor un-authorizedly;

4. Illegal storage of labels, PP caps and pet bottles;

5. Operating the manufacturing facility without prio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top