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 amount described as licence fee or fixed fee for grant of exclusive privilege to vend foreign liquor was a fee, tax, duty or cess within the constitutional legislative entries; (ii) Whether the Uttar Pradesh Excise (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972 and the Excise (Amendment) Rules, 1972 were within the legislative competence of the State.
Issue (i): Whether the amount described as licence fee or fixed fee for grant of exclusive privilege to vend foreign liquor was a fee, tax, duty or cess within the constitutional legislative entries.
Analysis: The levy in question was examined in the context of the excise law and the amended rules, which enabled grant of shop licences for foreign liquor either by auction or on a fixed scale. The amount payable by the successful bidder or licensee was treated as the consideration for parting with the State's exclusive privilege to vend liquor, not as a charge for services rendered. Applying the settled distinction between tax, fee and price for a privilege, the Court held that the payment lacked the essential elements of fee, tax, duty or cess and was instead the price of the privilege granted under the licence contract.
Conclusion: The amount was neither fee nor tax nor duty nor cess, but consideration for the grant of exclusive privilege, and the challenge on this ground failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the Uttar Pradesh Excise (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972 and the Excise (Amendment) Rules, 1972 were within the legislative competence of the State.
Analysis: The Court held that intoxicating liquors fall within the State's regulatory field under Entry 8 of List II, and that the State has power to prohibit, regulate, or permit dealings in liquor on terms it considers expedient. Since the levy was not a tax, duty, cess or fee in the constitutional sense, the Ordinance did not fail for want of competence under Entries 51, 62, 66 or 66 of List II. The Rules framed to regulate the mode of levy and collection were consequently supported by the valid Ordinance and the State's competence over intoxicating liquors.
Conclusion: The Ordinance and the Rules were within the State's legislative competence and were not ultra vires.
Final Conclusion: The High Court's invalidation of the levy and the rules was set aside, and the writ challenge to the excise measures failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the State parts with its exclusive privilege in intoxicants through a licence, the amount charged is the price of that privilege and not a constitutional fee, tax, duty or cess; such regulation falls within the State's power over intoxicating liquors.
TaxTMI 
