Supervisory jurisdiction and governmental assurances supported enforcement of payment despite absence of a formal licence.
The commentary explains that the Board of Revenue's supervisory power under the Act and the relevant notification extended to revising or directing compliance with the Excise Commissioner's action, even where no formal written order had been issued, because the statutory scheme placed the Commissioner under the Board's general control. It also states that the petitioner was entitled to payment at 42 paise per London Proof litre for supplies made during 1968-71, since the State had accepted the tender and the petitioner had supplied goods on the basis of governmental assurances and substantial compliance, despite the absence of a formal licence. The State could not rely on technical objections after benefiting from the continued supply.
Issues: (i) Whether the Board of Revenue had jurisdiction under the Act and the notification issued thereunder to revise or direct compliance in respect of the Excise Commissioner's action. (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to payment at the rate of 42 paise per London Proof litre for supplies made during 1968-71, notwithstanding the absence of a formal licence, on the basis of the State's acceptance and the assurances given by the Excise Commissioner.
Issue (i): Whether the Board of Revenue had jurisdiction under the Act and the notification issued thereunder to revise or direct compliance in respect of the Excise Commissioner's action.
Analysis: The statutory scheme placed the Excise Commissioner under the general control of the Board, and Section 8 empowered the Board to revise orders of the Collector, the Excise Commissioner or the Commissioner of a Division. Read with the notification delegating control over the Excise Department and the supervisory structure under the Act, the Board's power was not confined to cases where a formal written order had already been passed. The absence of a written order by the Excise Commissioner could not defeat the Board's supervisory function.
Conclusion: The Board had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and direct payment.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to payment at the rate of 42 paise per London Proof litre for supplies made during 1968-71, notwithstanding the absence of a formal licence, on the basis of the State's acceptance and the assurances given by the Excise Commissioner.
Analysis: The grant of exclusive privilege under Section 22 was a statutory act. The State had accepted the tender at 42 paise per London Proof litre, and the petitioner continued supplies after the stay of the original arrangement on the footing of the discussions and assurances recorded by the Excise Commissioner. The petitioner acted to its prejudice on that basis. The absence of a formal licence was not treated as defeating the claim, because there had been substantial compliance with the statutory requirement and the State could not repudiate the assurance after having accepted the benefit of continued supply. The principles governing enforcement of governmental promises and representations applied.
Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to payment at 42 paise per London Proof litre for the relevant period, and the State's challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The impugned Board order was upheld, the State's writ was dismissed, and the petitioner's writ was allowed with a direction to implement the payment order.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a competent statutory authority has granted an exclusive privilege and the grantee has acted to its detriment on the basis of governmental assurances, the State cannot deny liability on technical objections, and the supervisory authority may enforce compliance within its statutory control.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
