Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: impost in State Of Punjab And Anr vs Devans Modern Brewaries Ltd. And Anr on 20 November, 2003Matching Fragments
10. In case, the licensee seeks a permit to bring in imported alcohol, he would have to pay as a condition of the permission to import under Section 16(b) read with Section 19 an import pass fee at such sum fixed by the Government. The respondent in this case/writ petitioner has mixed up these different imposts and has referred to the duty paid under Rule 5 which is an amount equivalent to the excise duty and the fee under Rule 1(d) of Punjab Excise Fiscal Orders, 1932. As already noticed, on imported goods there are two independent imposts, namely, duty equal to the local excise duty under Rule 5 and an import fee under Rule 1(d) of the Punjab Excise Fiscal Orders, 1932.
77. Can the levy be said to be valid if thereby regulatory licencee fees have been imposed? The answer to the said question must be rendered in the negative.
78. Clause (28) of Article 366 reads as under:
"taxation" includes the imposition of any tax or impost, whether general or local or special, and "tax" shall be construed accordingly;
79. A regulatory impost would, thus, come within the purview of the tax. A fee in terms of the constitutional schemes may be either a regulatory licence fees or a fee in lieu of rendition of service. When no service is rendered a fee can be justified only by way of licence fees. Such impost, however, would be a tax and, thus, would clearly be referable to Entry 51 of List II to the Constitution and not Entry 66 thereof. (See Liberty Cinema (supra), D.C. Gouse & Co. (supra) and Hindustan Times and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr., JT 2002 (9) SC 317).
99. The fundamental right to trade in intoxicant liquor was recognized in State of Kerala and Ors. v. P.J. Joseph [AIR 1958 SC 296]. There the Government of Travancore and Cochin imposed 20% commission for sanction of extra quota of Foreign Liquor to wholesale licencees. The said impost was challenged before the High Court of Judicature for Travancore Cochin, which was struck down by said High Court. On Appeal by State this Court while upholding the judgment of High Court observed "an impost not authorised by law cannot possibly be regarded as a reasonable restriction and must, therefore, always infringe the right of the respondent to carry on his business which is guaranteed to him by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution." It was held that an impost in terms of an executive order having no authority of law would be illegal imposition.
122. In Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. (supra), the validity of the tax impugned therein was upheld only on the ground that it was compensatory in nature. There had been a cleavage of opinion amongst the Hon'ble Judges in the said matter; three Hon'ble Judges holding that such impost was ultra vires and three Hon'ble Judges holding the same to be intra vires. Subba Rao, J. upheld the constitutionality of the impost by agreeing with other three Hon'ble Judges on the ground that the impost was compensatory in nature. The Bench not only accepted the constitutional principles laid down by this Court in Atiabari (supra) but made a clear distinction between the regulatory measures which can be adopted by a State and imposition of a tax. It further, struck a note of caution that a geographical barrier cannot be set up by a State for the purpose of earning revenue or for the benefit of the people thereof. It was held that Article 301 covers a wide area.