Excise lease rent is not tax or duty under section 43B, so statutory payment remains outside the disallowance rule.

Kist or rental paid by an excise contractor to the State for the right to vend liquor was treated as consideration for the State's exclusive privilege to grant a lease or licence under excise law, not as tax, duty, cess or fee. Section 43B applies only to liabilities of that kind, and the phrase "by whatever name called" does not extend it to every statutory payment. Lease money or rent payable under the excise regime therefore falls outside section 43B and cannot be disallowed merely for non-payment.

---

---

Issues: Whether kist or rental payable by an excise contractor to the State Government for the right to vend liquor is a tax, duty, cess or fee so as to attract section 43B, and whether a statutory liability of that nature can be disallowed only on actual payment.

Analysis: The payment described as kist or rental was held to be consideration for the State's exclusive privilege to grant a lease or licence for vending intoxicants under the excise law, and not a levy correlated to manufacture or production. The Court relied on the settled position that such amounts are neither tax nor excise duty nor cess nor fee, even though they may arise under statute. Section 43B applies only to sums payable by way of tax, duty, cess or fee, and the words "by whatever name called" do not expand it to every statutory liability. A liability to pay lease money or rent under the excise regime therefore falls outside section 43B.

Conclusion: Kist/rental payable by the assessee to the Government could not be brought within the purview of section 43B, and the reference was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

---