Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Spencer Distilleries and Breweries (Pvt. Ltd.) - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Excise Department and ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 1689 of 2013
Decided On : 07-04-2022
certiorari - refund of export pass fee - Act, 1915 - Rule 106A - The court quashed the order rejecting the claim for refund of export pass fee deposited for export of beer, as the deposit was made without statutory provision and directed the refund with statutory interest. The court held that the principle of unjust enrichment is not applicable in the absence of a provision for deposit of export pass fee on beer under the Excise Act, 1915.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a private limited company engaged in the manufacture, brewing, and sale of beer, sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order rejecting the refund of export pass fee deposited for the export of beer. The petitioner contended that the deposit was made under a mistake of law and without any statutory provision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deposit of export pass fee on beer was made without any statutory provision, and the principle of unjust enrichment was not applicable. The court quashed the order rejecting the refund and directed the respondents to refund the amount with statutory interest.
Issues: The issues before the court were whether the Notification No. 470-F dated 15.01.1919 was applicable and whether the principle of unjust enrichment was applicable in the absence of any authority of law asking the petitioner to deposit the export pass fee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Notification No. 470-F dated 15.01.1919 was not applicable, as the same plea had been discarded in an earlier round of litigation. The court also held that the principle of unjust enrichment was not applicable, as there was no provision for deposit of export pass fee on beer under the Excise Act, 1915.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order rejecting the claim for refund and directed the respondents to refund the amount with statutory interest within three months.
ORDER :
The instant writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed seeking following reliefs:
(II). For a direction on the Respondents to make a refund of Rs. 8,69,035/- deposited by the petitioner along with statutory interest towards export pass fee for export of beer in view of direction contained in letter no. 280 dated 22.02.2006 (since quashed vide order dt. 03.10.2012 passed in W.P.C. No. 5527/2007).
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, which requires to be enumerated reads under as :
(i). licence in Form 18 to work a brewery;
(ii). licence in Form 19B to deposit or keep beer under bond in a warehouse authorized by the Excise Commissioner;
(iii). licence in Form 19C for sale of beer to other whole sellers; and
(iv). license in Form 20 to bottle beer for the purpose of sale.
It is the contention of the writ petitioner that under the rules framed in exercise of power conferred upon the State Government under Rule 89 of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1915’), the State Government provides requirement of holding license for sale of foreign liquor and rule 13 thereof deals with preparation of passes for the export of foreign liquor.
It is further case of the writ petitioner that under Rule 10 of the Act, 1915 read with Order 11(2) contained in Government Notification No. 470-F dated 15.01.1919 the respondents concerned are empowered to grant petitioner permission to export beer to other states of India as according to petitioner the respondent-authority has himself admitted the same.
The respondents came up with letter as contained in Memo No. 280 dated 22.02.2006, which is alleged to be issued on the basis of notification no. 470-F dated 15.01.1919, whereby it was directed to realize export pass fee from the petitioner for the export of beer at the same rate as has been prescribed for export of foreign liquor other than beer. However, in terms of letter dated 22.02.2006, the petitioner deposited Rs. 8.69,035/- towards export pass under mistake of law, as according to petitioner that under relevant provision of Rule 106 A of the Act, 1915 and the notification, only India made Foreign liquor being exported outside the state are required to be accompanied with export pass fee as prescribed rate.
The writ petitioner being aggrieved by the said order submitted representations, objecting that no export fee on beer is to be levied within the State of Jharkhand in absence of any rule, which did not evoke any response. However, the respondents came up with departmental resolution no. 380 dated 21.02.2004 whereby the import and export fee was stratified.
Therefore, writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 5527 of 2007 was filed wherein, this Court after hearing the parties, quashed the decision as contained in letter dated 22.02.2006 vide order 03.10.2012 and remanded the matter to the Excise Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Excise & Prohibition, Government of Jharkhand to consider the case of the petitioner afresh, for refund of the export pass fee deposited for export of beer on prior direction as contained in letter dated 22.02.2006, in terms of the Act and Rule an
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
