Excise levy and gallonage fee upheld where official advice could not override statute and no valid pass covered the transaction.

Official correspondence could not override the statutory construction of the Bengal Excise Act, and there was no estoppel against the Government on a question of law, so the petitioner remained liable to pay the gallonage fee. Sales to a dealer in Sikkim did not take the liquor outside the levy because Sikkim was not treated as a foreign sovereign State or a province under the Act, and the licence there was not a licence deemed under the Act; in the absence of a valid excise pass, the quantity stayed assessable. The gallonage fee and the rules were upheld as authorised by the Act and within constitutional competence, being part of the excise licensing scheme rather than an impermissible trade tax.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioner could rely on official correspondence to defeat the statutory levy and avoid liability to pay gallonage fee, (ii) whether sales to a dealer in Sikkim and the absence of a pass under the rule took the transactions outside the levy, and (iii) whether the gallonage fee and the impugned rules were authorised by the Bengal Excise Act and within constitutional competence.

Issue (i): whether the petitioner could rely on official correspondence to defeat the statutory levy and avoid liability to pay gallonage fee

Analysis: Official advice or departmental interpretation cannot control the true construction of a statute or the rules made under it. There is no estoppel against the Government on a question of law, and a citizen acting on an erroneous administrative view assumes the risk. The binding force lies in the statute and the judicial interpretation of it, not in departmental letters or advice.

Conclusion: The petitioner could not avoid the levy on the basis of the Collector's letter or other official advice.

Issue (ii): whether sales to a dealer in Sikkim and the absence of a pass under the rule took the transactions outside the levy

Analysis: Sikkim was treated as a protectorate and not as a foreign sovereign State or a province within the meaning of the Bengal Excise Act. A licence granted by the Sikkim authorities was not a licence under the Bengal Excise Act, and no determination had been made to deem it so under Section 20(1)(a). The pass contemplated by the rules was a valid excise pass issued to a person holding or deemed to hold a licence under that Act. In the absence of such a pass, the liquor remained part of the assessable quantity on which fee was chargeable.

Conclusion: The transactions with Sikkim did not exempt the quantity from the levy, and the rule was rightly applied.

Issue (iii): whether the gallonage fee and the impugned rules were authorised by the Bengal Excise Act and within constitutional competence

Analysis: The Act expressly empowered the State Government to regulate import, export, transport, licences, permits, passes and the scale and manner of payment of fees. The rules were framed under those powers and the licence fee was attached to the privilege granted by the licence. The levy was not treated as an impermissible tax on inter-State or international trade, but as an excise-related fee within the State's legislative field. The impugned provision was therefore neither ultra vires nor unconstitutional.

Conclusion: The fee and the rules were valid and authorised by statute and the Constitution.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the demand failed in substance because the levy was legally sustainable, the statutory machinery applied, and the writ jurisdiction was not available to displace the confirmed excise demand.

Ratio Decidendi: Administrative advice cannot override statutory interpretation, and a fee imposed as part of a licence under valid excise rule-making power is enforceable where the relevant transaction is not covered by a valid pass issued under the Act.

---