TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the amended provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, including the provisions dealing with seizure, confiscation and bar of jurisdiction over conveyances used in excise offences, were ultra vires for want of legislative competence or for repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the provisions curtailing the powers of criminal courts under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court were unconstitutional. (iii) Whether the impugned amendments were arbitrary or violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 301 of the Constitution of India.
Issue (i): Whether the amended provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, including the provisions dealing with seizure, confiscation and bar of jurisdiction over conveyances used in excise offences, were ultra vires for want of legislative competence or for repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The amendments were held to be part of a regulatory scheme governing intoxicating liquor and related conveyances. The State Legislature was found competent to enact the provisions under the State List, and the incidental overlap with provisions in central enactments did not invalidate the law. The reasoning treated the earlier settled principle that a similar excise amendment remained valid because its pith and substance fell within the State's competence and, where necessary, received constitutional protection against repugnancy.
Conclusion: The challenge on the ground of lack of legislative competence and repugnancy failed and was decided against the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether the provisions curtailing the powers of criminal courts under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court were unconstitutional.
Analysis: The Court held that the special confiscatory mechanism created by the excise law displaced the ordinary court power to order release of seized conveyances in relation to offences under that special statute. The scheme was compared with analogous provisions in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and other excise statutes, where jurisdiction of courts is similarly excluded in favour of special authorities. The bar on court intervention was treated as a valid statutory arrangement rather than an impermissible exclusion of judicial power.
Conclusion: The objection based on curtailment of criminal court jurisdiction and inherent powers was rejected and was decided against the appellant.
Issue (iii): Whether the impugned amendments were arbitrary or violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 301 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The provisions were characterised as preventive and regulatory measures intended to stop repeated misuse of vehicles in illicit transport of excisable articles. The confiscation and bar-of-jurisdiction mechanism was treated as reasonable and connected with the object of the legislation. The Court also held that the measures were regulatory in nature and therefore did not infringe the freedom of trade under Article 301 or the guarantees invoked by the appellants.
Conclusion: The constitutional challenge on grounds of arbitrariness and violation of fundamental rights failed and was decided against the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The amended provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 were upheld as valid regulatory measures, and the appeals challenging the writ dismissals were rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: A State excise law that, in pith and substance, regulates intoxicating liquor and provides a special confiscation and jurisdictional bar mechanism for conveyances used in excise offences is valid if it falls within State legislative competence and operates as a regulatory measure, even if it incidentally overrides ordinary criminal court powers.
TaxTMI 
