Deleted liability rule cannot sustain a later demand for earlier period without a saving clause

Liability for minimum guaranteed quantity shortfall under Rule 6-C of the Orissa Excise (Exclusive Privilege) Foreign Liquor Rules, 1989 could not be enforced once the rule was deleted in 2002, because no saving provision preserved demands under the omitted clause. The State monopoly corporation had already taken over wholesale trade from 31.01.2001, and the demand was raised only after the deletion. In these circumstances, the deleted rule could not be relied on to sustain a post-omission demand for an earlier period, and the impugned demand notice was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand for minimum guaranteed quantity shortfall could be enforced after deletion of Rule 6-C of the Orissa Excise (Exclusive Privilege) Foreign Liquor Rules, 1989, for the period preceding the deletion.

Analysis: Rule 6-C, which imposed the minimum guaranteed quantity obligation on bottling plants, was deleted by amendment in 2002. The wholesale trade in foreign liquor had already been vested in the State monopoly corporation from 31.01.2001, altering the commercial position of the licensees. The demand for shortfall was raised only after the deletion of the rule, and there was no saving provision preserving liability under the omitted rule. In such circumstances, the deleted provision could not be invoked to sustain a demand raised after its omission.

Conclusion: The demand for alleged minimum guaranteed quantity shortfall for the earlier period could not be validly enforced after deletion of Rule 6-C and was held unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed and the impugned demand notice was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a rule creating liability is deleted without any saving clause, a demand first raised after the deletion cannot be sustained for the prior period under the omitted rule.

---