IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
Urmila International Services Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 2072 of 2023, W.P.(C) No. 2162 of 2023, W.P.(C) No. 2198 of 2023, W.P.(C) No. 2199 of 2023, W.P.(C) No. 2200 of 2023
Decided on : 09-04-2024
[EXCISE LAW] - [JHARKHAND EXCISE ACT, 1915; RETAIL RULES, 2022] - [Sections 20, 22, 42, 89 of the Jharkhand Excise Act, 1915; Rule 15 of the Jharkhand Excise (Operation of Retail Product Shops through Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited) Rules, 2022] - The court examined the legality of Rule 15 of the Jharkhand Excise Rules, which imposed liability on placement agencies for shortfalls in Minimum Guarantee Revenue (MGR). It interpreted Sections 20 and 42 of the Jharkhand Excise Act, emphasizing that penalties for non-payment of excise duties can only be imposed on the licensee, not third parties. The court found Rule 15 to be ultra vires the Act, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, as it improperly shifted the financial burden from the licensee to the placement agencies, violating Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The court's decision was influenced by the need for adherence to statutory provisions and principles of natural justice in imposing penalties.
Fact of the Case:
A series of writ petitions were filed challenging Rule 15 of the Jharkhand Excise (Operation of Retail Product Shops through Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited) Rules, 2022, which imposed penalties on placement agencies for not achieving Minimum Guarantee Revenue (MGR). The petitioners contended that the rule was ultra vires the Jharkhand Excise Act, 1915, and violated their constitutional rights. The case involved multiple petitioners, each facing significant financial penalties based on the alleged shortfall in MGR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Rule 15 of the Retail Rules was unconstitutional and ultra vires the Jharkhand Excise Act. It held that the imposition of penalties on placement agencies for MGR shortfalls was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice, as the agencies were not the licensees responsible for excise duty payments. The court emphasized that penalties could only be imposed on the licensee under the Act, not on third parties.
Issues: 1. Whether Rule 15 of the Jharkhand Excise Rules imposes liability on placement agencies for MGR shortfalls. 2. Whether the petitioners, having entered into contractual obligations, are estopped from challenging the validity of Rule 15. 3. Whether the forfeiture of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and the issuance of a show cause notice to Urmila International Services Pvt. Ltd. were lawful.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Rule 15 of the Jharkhand Excise Rules was invalid as it improperly shifted the financial responsibility for excise duties from the licensee to the placement agencies, violating the statutory framework established by the Jharkhand Excise Act. The court reiterated that penalties for non-payment of excise duties must be imposed on the licensee, not on third parties, and emphasized the necessity of due process in imposing penalties.
Final Decision: All writ petitions were allowed, with the court quashing the penalties imposed under Rule 15 and the show cause notice issued to Urmila International Services Pvt. Ltd. The court ordered that any future actions regarding forfeiture of EMD must comply with the principles of natural justice and the interpretation of Rule 15 as clarified by the court.
JUDGMENT :
Per Deepak Roshan J.
Present batch of writ applications were earlier tagged to be heard analogous and are being decided by this common order.
2. In W.P.(C) No. 2072 of 2023, Petitioner-Urmila International Services Private Limited has prayed for the following reliefs:-
(b) setting aside the E-Tender notice bearing no. JSBCL/08 dated 10.04.2023 read with its corrigendum contained in Letter No. 780 dated 15.04.2023 (Annexure-4) issued by the Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited;
(c) declaring Clause 8(8) of Section VI of the Tender Document floated by the Respondent as bad in law and hence null and void;
(d) declaring Rule 15 of the “Jharkhand Utpaad (Jharkhand Rajya Beverage Corporation Limited ke Madhyam se Khudra Utpad Dukanoka Sanchalan) Niyamawali, 2022” (“Retail Rules, 2022”) as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India;
3. In W.P.(C) No. 2162 of 2023, Petitioner-M/s. A2Z Infra services Limited has prayed for the following reliefs:-
(b) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, for quashing/setting aside the order contained in Letter No. 696 dated 01.04.2023 (Annexure-8) issued by Respondent No.3-Managing Director, Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited, wherein Petitioner has been imposed penalty of Rs.1,21,78,40,140/- in terms of Rule 15 of the Jharkhand Excise (Operation of Retail Product Shops through Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited) Rules, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 2022’ for short) (Annexure-1).
(c) In alternative to prayer (i) above, Petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Declaration, declaring that definition of Minimum Guarantee Revenue as contained under Rule 2(xxiv) of Rules of 2022, to the extent it defines Minimum Guarantee Revenue to include only Excise Duty and Excise Transport Duty, is contrary to the definition of Excise Revenue contained under Section 2(ix) of the Bihar Excise Act, 2015 (as adopted).
(d) Further, in alternative to prayer (i) above, Petitioner prays for issuance of a further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Declaration declaring that the demand raised upon the Petitioner vide Letter No. 696 dated 01.04.2023 (Annexure-8) towards Minimum Guarantee Revenue (for short ‘MGR’) in alleged exercise of the power under Rule 15 of the Rules of 2022 is, per se, illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, confiscatory and oppressive, especially in view of the fact that Minimum Guarantee Revenue for the financial year 2022-23 has already been achieved by the State of Jharkhand through Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited.
4. In W.P.(C) No. 2198of 2023, Petitioner-M/s. Sumeet Facilities Limited has prayed for the following reliefs:-
(b) To hold and declare that the collection of excise revenue in the form of Excise Duty including Additional Excise Duty as also Excise Transport Duty is the responsibility of a licensee under the Jharkhand Excise Act and such statutory responsibility cannot be contracted out to the placement agency;
(
Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Sharadkumar Jayantikumar Pasawalla
Bimal Chandra Banerjee v. State of Madhya Pradesh &Ors. reported in 1970 (2) SCC 467
Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of I.T. Delhi & Rajasthan &Anr.
Consumer Online Foundation & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2011) 5 SCC 360
Cellular Operators Association of India Vs. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India‘
Gorkha Security Services v. Government [NCT of Delhi] and others
Global Energy Ltd. V. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission reported in (2009) 15 SCC 570
J.K.Industries Ltd. v. Union of India
J.G. Engineers Private Limited v. Union of India & Another (2011 5 SCC 758
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Ors. v. Union of India &Ors
Kerala Samsthana Chethu Thozhilai Union Vs. State of Kerala &Ors.’
Khodhay Distillery v. State of Karnataka
Kerala Bar Hotels Association v. State of Kerala
Kunnathat Thatehunni Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala reported in AIR 1961 SC 552
Oryx Fisheries Pvt Limited v. Union of India
Registrar of Coop. Societies v. K. Kunjabmu [(1980) 1 SCC 340 : AIR 1980 SC 350
State of Nagaland v. Ratan Singh [AIR 1967 SC 212 : 1967 CrLJ 265
State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Firm Gappulal and Ors. reported in (1976) 1 SCC 791
State of Orissa vs. Narain Prasad
State of Karnataka v. Shree Rameshwara Rice Mills. Thirthahalli (1987) 2 SCC 160
State of T.N. v. P. Krishnamurthy
St John's Teachers Training Institute v. NCTE
Rule 15 of the Jharkhand Excise (Operation of Retail Product Shops through Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited) Rules, 2022, which imposed penalties on placement agencies for shortfalls in ....
Point of law : Owner of cinema house cannot challenge the setting up of a new cinema house because it does not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest, the business competitio....
There is no fundamental right to trade in liquor; state policies can modify licensing rights as long as they comply with statutory provisions.
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.