Directory time limit for excise verification reports defeats bank guarantee invocation where exports and later verification were established.

The 21-day period in Rule 12-A of the A.P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1979 was treated as directory, because the provision operated as a verification mechanism rather than a charging requirement. Applying the legislative-intent test, the court noted that the exporters had in fact shipped the liquor, explained the delay, and later produced verification reports from the importing States, with no allegation of permit misuse, non-receipt of consignments, or non-payment of duty. On that basis, the invocation and encashment of the bank guarantees for delay in furnishing the reports was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the time limit of 21 days prescribed in Rule 12-A of the A.P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1979 for furnishing excise verification reports was mandatory or directory, and whether the respondents could validly invoke the bank guarantees for delay in producing such reports.

Analysis: The governing test was whether the legislative intent, gathered from the object of the rule, its setting, and the consequences of alternative constructions, made the provision mandatory or directory. The judgment treated the time prescription as part of the machinery for collection and verification, not as a charging provision. On the facts, the petitioners had exported liquor, explained the delay, and ultimately furnished verification reports from the importing States. There was no allegation of misuse of permits, non-receipt of consignments, or non-payment of duty in the importing States. The earlier reasoning that the verification requirement itself was mandatory, but the time limit for its production was only directory, was applied to the present facts.

Conclusion: Rule 12-A was held to be directory as to the time limit, and the invocation and encashment of the bank guarantees was held unsustainable.

---