TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules license fee on denatured spirit sales illegal, orders refund. State's power limited to preventing misuse.</h1> <h3>State of U.P. & Ors Versus M/s Lalta Prasad Vaish</h3> State of U.P. & Ors Versus M/s Lalta Prasad Vaish - 2007 (11) SCR 670, 2007 (13) SCC 463, 2007 (12) SCALE 592 Issues Involved:1. Legality of the levy of licence fee on the sale of specially denatured spirit.2. State's power to regulate the manufacture and sale of denatured spirit under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951.3. Impact of Section 18-G of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, and Entry 33 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution on State legislation.4. Questions regarding the interpretation of Section 18-G and its effect on State legislative competence.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Levy of Licence FeeThe writ petitioner, a holder of a licence in Form FL No. 41 under the Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, 1910, challenged the levy of a licence fee on the sale of specially denatured spirit. The petitioner argued that the fee was neither regulatory nor compensatory as no services were rendered to justify it. The High Court held the impugned licence fee to be illegal, stating that the fee was being charged for the sale/purchase of denatured spirit, which was outside the purview of the State Legislative powers as per the Supreme Court's decision in State of U.P. Vs. Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. and Anr. The High Court directed the respondents to refund the collected fee with interest.2. State's Power to Regulate Denatured SpiritThe common challenge in all the matters was that the State had no power to regulate the manufacture and sale of denatured spirit in view of Section 2 and Section 18-G of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1961. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State of U.P. Vs. Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd., which held that the State's power was limited to preventing the misuse of industrial alcohol as intoxicating liquor and charging fees based on the principle of quid pro quo.3. Impact of Section 18-G and Entry 33 of List IIIThe High Court's decision was based on the interpretation that Section 18-G of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, and Entry 33 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution ousted the State's power to legislate in respect of industrial alcohol. The Supreme Court in Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of U.P. held that the State could regulate the use of alcohol to prevent its misuse as intoxicating liquor but could not claim exclusive rights over industrial alcohol.4. Questions for Larger Bench ConsiderationThe Supreme Court, while considering the submissions, formulated several questions for a larger Bench to address:- Q.1: Impact of Section 2 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, on the field covered by Section 18-G and Entry 33 of List III.- Q.2: Whether Section 18-G falls under Entry 52 of List I or Entry 33 of List III.- Q.3: If the absence of a notified order under Section 18-G ousts the State's power to legislate under Entry 33 of List III.- Q.4: Whether the enactment of Section 18-G presumes the Central Government's intention to cover the entire field under Entry 33 of List III.- Q.5: If the presence of Section 18-G ousts the State's power to legislate under Entry 33(a) of List III.- Q.6: Whether the interpretation in Synthetics and Chemicals Case correctly states the law regarding the State's power to regulate industrial alcohol under Entry 33 of List III.The Supreme Court directed that these matters be placed before the Chief Justice of India for consideration and appropriate orders.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
