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>Validity of Overtime Charges Amendment Upheld under U.P. Excise Act</h1> <h3>M/s. Lords Distillery Limited Versus State of U.P. And Others</h3> M/s. Lords Distillery Limited Versus State of U.P. And Others - TMI Issues:Challenge to amendment in rates of overtime charges under the U.P. United Provinces Excise Act, 1910. Demand for payment of overtime charges and interest. Interpretation of Section 38-A of the Act. Validity of demand notices for interest on late deposit of overtime charges.Analysis:The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing industrial and potable alcohol, challenged the amendment in rates of overtime charges under the U.P. United Provinces Excise Act, 1910. The petitioner contended that the enhancement lacked statutory backing and correlation with services rendered by the Excise Department. Despite the challenge, a Division Bench upheld the amendment's validity, stating that overtime fees are a condition of the license and a fee connected with the privilege to operate the distillery.Subsequently, demand notices were issued for payment of interest on late deposit of overtime charges. The petitioner argued that interest could only be charged under Section 38-A of the Act on arrears of excise revenue. The petitioner disputed that overtime charges, governed by Rule 12 of the Rules, do not constitute excise revenue and hence, interest under Section 38-A could not be levied. The petitioner also contested the applicability of a paragraph in the previous judgment as obiter dicta.Upon considering Section 38-A of the Act, the court noted that interest is payable on excise revenue not paid within three months. The Act defines excise revenue to include revenue from duties, fees, taxes, fines, or confiscations. The petitioner argued that overtime charges do not fall within this definition. However, a previous judgment held that overtime charges are a fee under the Act, justifying interest under Section 38-A until set aside by the Supreme Court.The court concluded that as long as the previous judgment stands, interest on late deposit of overtime charges is justifiable under Section 38-A. Therefore, the demand notices for interest were upheld, and the writ petition was dismissed.
TaxTMI 