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

2008 Supreme(All) 2704

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sunil Ambwani
PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT LTD
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 05 December 2008
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1265 of 2007

Advocates:
K.M.Sahai, Vivek Chaudhary,

The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of correct interpretation of license conditions and the proper exercise of statutory powers by the Excise Commissioner and the State Government.

Headnote:

Companies Act - Alcohol Taxation Act, 1939 - U.P. Excise Act, 1910 - [Companies Act] - [Alcohol Taxation Act, 1939, U.P. Excise Act, 1910] - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the violation of condition No. 2 of the license in Form FL-3a under the U.P. Bottling of Foreign Liquor Rules, 1969, and the levy of purchase tax under Section 3(c) of the U.P. Motor Spirit, Diesel Oil & Alcohol Taxation Act, 1939. The court also considered the jurisdiction and powers of the Excise Commissioner and the State Government under the U.P. Excise Act, 1910.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacturing alcoholic beverages, filed a writ petition challenging the show cause notice and order of the Secretary, Excise, Government of U.P. The dispute arose from the import and procurement of grain neutral spirit and concentrate of alcoholic beverages, and the alleged violation of license conditions.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Excise Commissioner's order was based on incorrect interpretation of the license condition and that the State Government's revisionary powers were improperly exercised. The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Principal Secretary, Excise, Government of U.P.

Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of license conditions, the imposition of purchase tax, and the exercise of revisionary powers by the State Government.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Excise Commissioner's order was based on incorrect interpretation and that the State Government's exercise of revisionary powers was improper. The court emphasized the need for proper interpretation of license conditions and the correct exercise of statutory powers.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Principal Secretary, Excise, Government of U.P. There shall be no order as to costs.

SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

1. M/s Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. , a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of manufacturing and bottling alcoholic beverages in India under diverse brands and trade names, has filed this writ petition to call for the records of Revision No. 48 of 2007 decided by Principal Secretary, Excise, Government of Uttar Pradesh, and to quash the show cause notice dated 17. 8. 2006 and the order of the Secretary, Excise, Government of U. P. dated 7. 8. 2007, and all proceedings taken pursuant thereto. The company has also prayed for declaring that there is no violation of condition No. 2 of license in Form FL-3a by the petitioner; to hold and declare that the petitioner is not liable for payment of any purchase tax in respect of grain neutral spirit and concentrate of alcoholic beverages procured and imported by Seagram Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. from outside the State of U. P. , during the years 1994 to 2006 and in the alternative to declare condition No. 2 in the license issued under the U. P. Bottling of Foreign Liquor Rules, 1969 to be ultra vires and to strike down the same. In the alternative the petitioner has also sought a declaration that the Grain Neutral Spirit (GNS) and Concentrate of Alcoholic Beverages (CAB) procured by the petitioner are not alcohol within the meaning of the U. P. Motor Spirit, Diesel Oil and Alcohol Taxation Act, 1939, and are not subject to levy of purchase tax under Section 3 (c) thereof, and to declare that the levy of import fee of Rs. 2/- per AL, on the import and procurement of GNS and CAB to be illegal and unconstitutional.

2. Heard Shri Sudhir Chandra, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vivek Chaudhary for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appeared for the respondents.

3. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Seagram Company Ltd. , Montreal, Canada, a then leading transnational alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage company was given approval by the Government of India vide letter dated 20. 7. 1993 to set up a wholly owned subsidiary in India to undertake a composite spirits/ wine/ fruit based products manufacturing/ blending/ upgrading, of locally manufactured liquor products, Indian Made Foreign Liquor, bottling, marketing and an inhouse Research and Development facility, in India subject to the condition that the proposed Indian subsidiary was to manufacture/ blend 25,000 KL per annum, of non-molasses based potable spirit with an existing license holder, and using existing licensed capacity. The approval took specific note of the fact that the project would involve import of scotch malt spirits to be used in upgrading locally manufactured liquor. Seagram India Private Ltd. , a company with its registered office at New Delhi changed its name to Pernod Ricard India Private Limited and promoted a new company, Seagram Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. (SMPL), which is wholly owned subsidiary of Seagram India Private Ltd. A letter of intent dated 7. 10. 1993 was issued by Government of India to start its distillation activity with a capacity of 5000 KL per annum. The letter of intent was transferred to SMPL on 20. 5. 1994.

4. The SMPL identified Daurala Sugar Works, DCM Shriram Industries Ltd. , Daurala, Distt. Meerut, the holder of a licence in Form FL-3, at its plant at Daurala. SMPL entered into an agreement with Daurala Sugar Works (DSW) to assign to SMPL upto 5000 KL per annum bottling capacity under the license.

5. The DSW as the holder of licence in Form FL-3 by an application dated 30. 5. 1994 applied to the Excise Commissioner, U. P. for permission to assign a part of their privilege under the said licence in favour of SMPL and for grant of a licence in Form FL-3a in favour of SMPL. SMPL also applied separately for licence in Form BWFL 2. The Excise Commissioner, U. P. granted a license to SMPL in the printed Form FL- 3a for a period from 23. 9. 1994 to 31. 3. 1995 and which has been renewed from year to year under the U. P. Exci







































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