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 State Government was under a mandatory duty to constitute the Advisory Committee under the molasses control law. (ii) Whether the direction requiring supply of 20% molasses applied even when a sugar mill had no balance stock after captive consumption.
Issue (i): Whether the State Government was under a mandatory duty to constitute the Advisory Committee under the molasses control law.
Analysis: The statutory scheme, the rule-making provisions, the subordinate rules and the earlier notification constituting the committee showed that the Advisory Committee was intended to play a substantive role in advising on storage, preservation, gradation, price, supply and disposal of molasses. The use of permissive language in the enabling provision was not decisive. The provision had to be read with the object of the Act and the connected rules, which indicated that the power was coupled with a duty and was not merely discretionary.
Conclusion: The State Government was bound to constitute the Advisory Committee, and the contrary view was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether the direction requiring supply of 20% molasses applied even when a sugar mill had no balance stock after captive consumption.
Analysis: The relevant governmental direction was construed as operating only on the balance or excess stock of molasses remaining after actual captive consumption. It could not be extended to compel supply where no such balance stock existed. On the facts found, the appellant's case was that it had no surplus stock and even had to import molasses for its own needs; the High Court had treated the direction as applying to every mill irrespective of available balance stock, which was held to be erroneous.
Conclusion: The direction to supply 20% molasses did not apply where there was no balance stock, and the authorities could not compel such supply in those circumstances.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the impugned direction could not be enforced against a mill without balance stock, and the State was directed to constitute the Advisory Committee expeditiously. The matter was disposed of accordingly.
Ratio Decidendi: A permissive statutory power may be construed as mandatory where the scheme, object and connected rules show that it is coupled with a public duty, and a supply direction framed with reference to balance stock cannot be applied to compel production from a mill having no surplus stock.
TaxTMI 
