Supreme Court of India
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. versus V.S.NARAYANA SWAMY
- Decided
- 21 August 1991
- Judges listed
- RANGANATH MISRA
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1991] 3 S.C.R. 700 · 1991 INSC 201
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
RANGANATH MISRA, CJ. The appeal is by special leave. Challenge is to the.Judgment 0f the Karnataka High Court declaring Rule 8(1) of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian & Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968 in so far as it relat~s to levy of licence fee for retail vending of authorised Indian and foreign liquors and directing refund of such levy collected within three years prior to 2.8.1971 when the Writ Petition was filed.
p. 701, margin C
Respondent, an excise contractor, had taken in auction the exclusive· privilege to sell iiquors in retail at an approved shop premises. He was issued the appropriate licence under tho provisions of the law on payment of licence fee in terms of Item 2 of Rule 8(1) of the aforesaid Rules. Respondent filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court challenging the vires of s. 23(d) of the Mysore Excise Act, 1965 (hereafter 'Act' for short) and Rule 8(1) as being beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. The High Court did npt accept the contention of the respondent in regard to s. 23 but held that Rule 8(1) authorising the levy of a licence fee for the retail off shop was without authority of law.
p. 701, margin D
Section 23(d), as far as relevant, provides: .
p. 701, margin F
"23. Ways of levying such duties- Subject to such Rules regulating the time, place and manner, as may be prescribed, excise duty and countervail-. ing duty under section 22 shall be levied in one or'more of the following ways, as may be prescribed, namely:
p. 701, margin G
(a) ....... . (aa) ....... . (b) ....... . (c) ....... .
p. 702, margin A
(d) by fees on licences in respect of manufacture or
p. 702, margin B
sale of any excisable articles.,;
p. 702, margin B
Rule 8 made under the rule making powers, under the Act, intu alia, provides:
p. 702, margin B
"8. Fee to be paid- ( 1) The licence fee for the several kinds of licences shall be as follows, namely: 1 ...... . 2 ...... .
p. 702, margin C
3 ...... .
p. 702, margin D
The High Court rightly did not accept the challenge to s. 23(d) of the Act. What is :mthorfaed under s. 23(d) is imposition of a fee of licence in respect of mantrfacture or sale pf any excisable articles. Rule 8( I) h:as obviously gone beyond the enabling provision in the section by requiring a licence fee to be paid for the premises where the licensed shop is located. Such a fee would not have the support of s 23(d). It is unnecessary to refer to precedents for support for this
p. 702, margin D
conclusion . .It may be possible fa{ the Legislature to make a statutory provision for a licence fee of the type contemplated under the Rules but without authority of the statute a rule of the type impugned should not have been made. We find no merit in this appeal and it is, therefore, dismissed.
p. 702, margin D
Respondent did not appear inspite of service of appe'al notice. We make no order for costs. G.N. Appeal dismissed.
p. 702, margin F