Lack of statutory authority for licence commission and quota conditions infringed the right to carry on business.

A quota fixation and a 20% commission on sales beyond quota under the Cochin Abkari regime were held to lack lawful authority because the demand rested on an endorsement not shown to be a statutory order and not published in the Gazette as required for rules or notifications with force of law. Section 18 authorised levy only in the modes it specified, and the licence had already been issued under Rule 7 on payment of the prescribed annual fee. Imposing an additional commission would effectively alter the licence terms and increase the fee without statutory backing, so it could not qualify as a reasonable restriction on business and infringed Article 19(1)(g).

---

---

Issues: Whether the fixation of sale quota and the levy of a 20% commission on sales in excess of quota under the Cochin Abkari regime were authorised by law and, if not, whether the impost infringed the constitutional right to carry on business.

Analysis: The impugned demand was traced to an endorsement that was not shown to be a statutory order made under the Act and was not published in the official Gazette as required for rules or notifications having the force of law. Section 18 of the Cochin Abkari Act permitted duty to be levied only in the modes stated therein, and the licences had already been issued under Rule 7 of the Cochin Abkari Rules on payment of the prescribed annual fee. A further commission on excess sales would effectively alter the licence conditions and enhance the fee without lawful authority. As the impost lacked statutory support, it could not be treated as a reasonable restriction on the licensee's business.

Conclusion: The quota fixation and the commission levy were illegal and unsupported by authority of law, and the respondent's fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) was infringed.

---