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

2024 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 38192

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T. Vinod Kumar, J
United Spirits Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION Nos.27288 & 27289 of 2014



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Counsel for petitioner
For the Respondents: Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, M.V. Durga Prasad, B.S. Prasad

The time limit of 21 days for submission of an Excise Verification Certificate under Rule 11-A of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Import, Export and Transportation of IMFL and Foreign Liquor Permits) Rules, 2005, is directory in nature rather than mandatory.

Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 - Andhra Pradesh Excise (Import, Export and Transportation of IMFL and Foreign Liquor Permits) Rules, 2005 - Rule 11-A - Furnishing of Excise Verification Certificate (EVC) - Delay in submission - Whether time limit for submission is directory or mandatory - Principle that procedural rules cannot be applied in strict sense - Held, time limit for submission of verification certificate is directory in nature.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a manufacturer of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, exported consignments to the newly formed State of Andhra Pradesh. Due to administrative delays following state bifurcation, there was a minor delay in submitting the EVCs to the excise authorities. Consequently, the authorities invoked the bank guarantees submitted by the petitioner.

Findings of Court:
The court held that while the requirement to produce an EVC is mandatory, the 21-day time limit prescribed for such submission is directory. The mechanical invocation of bank guarantees by the authorities without considering the logistical challenges caused by state bifurcation was deemed arbitrary.

Issues: Whether the 21-day timeline prescribed under Rule 11-A for submission of EVCs constitutes a mandatory limitation or a directory instruction, and whether the respondent was justified in invoking bank guarantees due to a delay in submission.

Ratio Decidendi: Procedural provisions in rules, while requiring compliance, should not be applied with such rigidity that they lose their purpose. The requirement of EVC submission is for ensuring excise revenue, but the timeline is directory, allowing for reasonable administrative delays, especially in the context of state bifurcation.

Result: The writ petitions were allowed, directing the respondents to refund the encashed bank guarantee amounts after adjusting for any consignments for which no EVC was produced.

Table of Content
1. factual background regarding export permits and delayed evc submission due to state bifurcation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
2. respondent's contention that the rule is mandatory and bank guarantee invocation is justified. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
3. court's view on the directory nature of the time limit for evc submission and judicial notice of state bifurcation issues. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
4. court's final reasoning, conclusion, and direction to refund bank guarantees. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)

Since these Writ Petitions are filed by same petitioner involving a common lis, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 in W.P. No. 27288 of 2014 and Sri B.S. Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.3, in W.P. No. 27289 of 2014 and perused the record.

Facts in W.P. No. 27288 of 2014:

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that it is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, inter alia engaged in the manufacture and sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and alike products; that the petitioner has its manufacturing units at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, situated in the State of Telangana; that the petitioner’s manufacturing Unit at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District was issued with license to manufacture IMFL with an installed capacity of 550 Lakhs PL under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short the Act, 1968’), in the composite State of Andhra Pradesh; and that upon bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh into the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, the subject Unit of the petitioner is now located in the State of Telangana.

4. It is the further case of petitioner that in order to export the IMFL manufactured by it at its unit situated at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District to the Depots situated in Andhra Pradesh after 02.06.2014, it had made an application as per Rule 10 Andhra Pradesh Excise (Import, Export and Transportation of ‘IMFL’ and Foreign Liquor Permits) Rules, 2005 (for short ‘the Rules’) by submitting an application in Form-L4 to the 2nd respondent for grant of export permit along with the prescribed fee.

5. Petitioner further contends that on obtaining export permit subject to payment of Excise Duty on IMFL proposed to be exported or on furnishing Bank Guarantee from the scheduled Bank covering the extent of entire Excise Revenue due on the consignment, the 2nd respondent authority would grant permission to the applicant/petitioner to export the IMFL to the place of destination permitted therein.

6. It is also the further case of petitioner that export of IMFL to the place of destination is based on import permit granted by the destination-State importing the IMFL.

7. It is the further case of petitioner that on dispatching the consignment and delivering the same at the import destination State, the petitioner is required to obtain/secure verification report from the concerned Prohibition and Excise Officials of respective State who had issued import permit and the said verification report issued by the Officials of the Prohibition and Excise Department of the destination location is required to be submitted to the Export Permit issuing authority i.e., the 2nd respondent herein within 21 days as per Rule 11-A of the Rules after expiry of the validity of the Export Permit, failing which the Excise Duty paid or the Bank guarantee furnished shall be invoked and encashed by the Government towards Excise Revenue due on the consignment and no new permit shall be issued until such verification report for the previous consignments is furnished.

8. It is also the further case of petitioner

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