1975 (4) TMI 130 - SC - Central Excise

State Entitled to Levy Enhanced Liquor Fee on Spill-Over Stock

STATE OF MP. Versus TIKAMDAS

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh, ruling in favor of the State's claim to levy an enhanced license fee on the ... Whether the respondent is liable to pay enhanced fee brought about by amendment of the rules on April 25, 1964? Held that:- The contention that the enhanced levy of licence fee cannot operate as from April 1, 1964 is to be negatived. A fair reading of the rule giving full effect to the words used in Rule XXVI of the Excise rules and the explanation added to Rule IV (of the Foreign Liquor Rules already extracted) leave us in no doubt that the balance of stocks envisioned by the rules and subjected to enhancement or reduction of duty is such surplus stock as is held immediately before the expiry of the previous license. So construed, in this case the quantity held over on March 31, 1964 becomes liable to enhancement of license fee on April 1, 1964 and that is precisely what the Stats has claimed. For, otherwise, some persons who by accident have huge stocks left over will not have to pay the enhanced rate of licence fee while others with 'virgin' licences for that year and begin with no stock-on-hand have to pay at a higher rate. Again, if only the respondent had surrendered his surplus stocks on 31-3-1964, as ordinarily he would have had to, had he not been permitted to retain that quantity in view of his getting a fresh licence for the same premises, he would have had to pay the enhanced rate for such left-over stock. Thus(the respondent) had to pay the higher fee on the balance of stock as on April 1, 1964. The High Court erred in its interpretation of the rules as applicable to the present situation. Appeal allowed Issues:1. Validity of the State's claim to levy enhanced license fee on spill-over stock of intoxicating liquor.2. Interpretation of the retrospective effect of the amended Foreign Liquor Rules.3. Applicability of the enhanced license fee to the balance stock of foreign liquor held by the licensee on March 31, 1964.Detailed Analysis:1. The appellant, the State of Madhya Pradesh, challenged the High Court's decision that rejected its claim to levy an enhanced license fee on the spill-over stock of intoxicating liquor held by the respondent. The State contended that the respondent, who operated a bar, should pay the revised fee on the remaining stock. The State's argument was based on the amendment to the Foreign Liquor Rules, which allowed for the collection of the difference in fees on remaining stock in the event of an enhancement of the fee scale. The respondent resisted this demand, claiming that the balance stock had already been subjected to the license fee. The court held that the State was entitled to collect the fee on the revised scale, emphasizing the licensee's liability to pay the enhanced fee on the balance of stock held on April 1, 1964.2. The retrospective effect of the amended Foreign Liquor Rules was a crucial aspect of the case. The State's power to make retroactive rules was examined in light of Sections 62 and 63 of the Excise Act. The court determined that the statute authorized the State to make retroactive rules, enabling the enhanced levy of the license fee to operate from April 1, 1964. The amendment to the rules, which included provisions for collecting the difference in fees on remaining stock, was deemed valid and applicable to the situation at hand.3. The interpretation of Rule XXVI under the General Licence Conditions was pivotal in deciding the applicability of the enhanced license fee to the balance stock of foreign liquor held by the licensee. The rule outlined the procedure for dealing with surplus intoxicants upon the expiry of the license, including the collection of the difference in duty on remaining stock in the event of an increase in fees. The court emphasized that the balance of stocks subject to enhancement or reduction of duty referred to surplus stock held immediately before the previous license's expiration. Therefore, the court concluded that the respondent was liable to pay the higher fee on the balance of stock as of April 1, 1964, rejecting the High Court's interpretation and ruling in favor of the State.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the parties to bear their costs despite the substantial legal question involved in the case. The judgment clarified the State's authority to levy an enhanced license fee on spill-over stock of intoxicating liquor and upheld the retrospective application of the amended Foreign Liquor Rules in determining the licensee's liability for the revised fee on remaining stock.