although promulgated on April 25, 1964 was given effect retrospectively from April 1, 1964.
On the date of expiry of the licence, viz.,
Apparently the State Government had decided on the increased rate because we find from Annexure B a demand being made by the Excise Inspector on the licensee to pay the difference of fees companysequent on the enhancement of the scale of fees, as worked out on the stock which remained in hand with the owner of the bar on the night of March 31, 1964.
The rule itself.
Apart from raising the rates, Rule IV was also amended by the addition of the following provision at the end of it The licensee shall be liable to pay the difference of fees per bottle on the balance of stocks of foreign liquor in the event of the enhancement of the scale of fees during the currency or on expiry of the licence.
fee companyld number be applied validly to such stocks.
From the Judgment and Order dated 2nd March 1965 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
One such amendment companycerns the scale of fees in respect of licence in Form F.L.3, an upward revision having been effected.
The Excise Act and the Foreign Liquor Rules made thereunder govern sales of these intoxicants and Form F.L.3 applies to bars which sell foreign liquor for companysumption.
The legality of the levy depends oil the applicability of the enhanced scales of licence fee to tile balance of foreign liquor stock held by the licensee on the midnight of 31/3 1/4/1964.
Despite the undertaking given to companyply with such enhanced demand, the hotelier resisted it and took up the stand that the balance stock had already been subjected to licence fee when it was brought in and that the subsequent raising of the rate of licence Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 Act 11 of 1915 .
Ram Panjwani, I. N. Shroff and H. S. Parithar, for the appellants.
The balance quantity left over with the respondent at the end of the licensed period, viz.,
Based on this modification of the rules, the State made the demand for the difference.
March 31, 1964 was checked by the companycerned Excise Officials and a panchnama prepared in that behalf.
The facts being thus plain, we will straight go to the law relied on by the State in support of its claim.
He obtained a fresh licence for a further period of one year companymencing from April 1, 1964.
On April 25, 1964, the Government, by virtue of its powers under the Act, amended in certain respects the Foreign Liquor Rules.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
348 of 1964.
31st March 1 964, the respondent had with him a large quantity of unsold liquor which was already in the licensed premises, having been brought earlier.
Since the State insisted on levying at the larger rate even on the balance stock held on March 31, 1964 the respondent moved the High Court for the issuance of a writ quashing the demand as illegal.
Meanwhile Government was entertaining the idea of enhancing the scales of licence fee for the various kinds of foreign liquor.
The respondent runs a cafe at Indore and a foreign liquor bar booths expensive sales and attracts affluent addicts.
As is obvious, the facts are brief and beyond dispute, the issue of law straight and simple and our decision, on a careful study of the alternative companystructions of the relevant provision, is that the State is entitled to companylect the fee on the revised scale.
The licence which he held was for one year from April 1, 1963 to March 31, 1964.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J. The claim of the appellant, the State of Madhya Pradesh, to leavy enhanced license fee on the spill over stock of intoxicating liquor held as on April 1, 1964 by the respondent who runs a bar, was successfully challenged in the High Court.
Petition No.
At that time, under the extant rules the fee payable was 37 paise per quart bottle of malt liquor and different rates for other kinds of foreign liquor.
N. Lokur and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondent.
668 of 1968.
133 and disputes the companyrectness of the view accepted by the High Court.
So the State has companye up in appeal, by certificate, under Art.
Naturally, as a profitable proposition the respondent obtained a licence for the sale of foreign liquor in Form F. L. 3 issued under the Foreign Liquor Rules framed under the Excise Act, 1915 1 .
Ordinarily, the surplus stock has to be surrendered by the licensee but, on an undertaking to pay the difference in the event of an enhancement of the rates, the bar owner was permitted to keep on his premises the balance quantity so ascertained.
