Chandrashekhar, son of Shri Ram Kripal Singh v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 12 Dec 2013
- Bench
- R M DOSHIT, ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
Judgment
Manju Devi, wife of Shri Ranbeer Singh, resident of Mohalla -Gawaspur, P.O. Jaitiya, P.S. Gaurichak, District Patna. .... .... Petitioner Versus
The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Registration, Excise and Prohibition Department, Bihar, Patna.
The Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna.
The Joint Commissioner of Excise, Patna.
The Collector, Patna.
The Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Patna. ====================================================== .... .... Respondents With Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22222 of 2013 ====================================================== Ranbir Singh, son of Shri Madan Singh, resident of Mohalla-Gawaspur, P.O.-Jaitiya, P.S.-Gaurichak, District-Patna. Patna High Court CWJC No.22054 of 2013 (5) dt.12-12-2013 .... .... Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Registration Excise and Prohibition Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Joint Commissioner of Excise, Patna.
4. The Collector, Patna.
5. The Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Patna. ====================================================== .... .... Respondents With Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22250 of 2013 ====================================================== Dharmendra Kumar Singh, son of Shri Nawal Kishore Singh, resident of Mohalla Chandmari Road, Lohia Nagar, P.S. Kankarbagh, District Patna. .... .... Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Registration, Excise And Prohibition Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Joint Commissioner of Excise, Patna.
4. The Collector, Patna.
5. The Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Patna. ====================================================== .... .... Respondents With Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22251 of 2013 ====================================================== Jitendra Kumar Singh, son of Shri Nawal Kishore Singh, resident of Mohalla - Chandmari Road, P.S. Kankarbagh, District Patna. .... .... Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Registration, Excise and Prohibition Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. Patna High Court CWJC No.22054 of 2013 (5) dt.12-12-2013
3. The Joint Commissioner of Excise, Patna.
4. The Collector, Patna.
5. The Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Patna. ====================================================== .... .... Respondents Appearance : (In all the writ petitions) For the Petitioners : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Lalit Kishore P.A.A.G. Mr. Vikash Kumar, A.C. to P.A.A.G. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 5 12-12-2013 This group of writ petitions are filed by the licencees of retail sale of beer and foreign liquor for the year 2012-13. The Petitions are directed against the demand raised in the month of April 2013 after expiry of the licence period for the amount of loss of revenue suffered by the State Government. The facts not in dispute are that the writ petitioners are the licencees for retail sale of beer and foreign liquor.
Their licence expired on 31st March 2013. During the period of subsistence of licence, they were required to lift specified minimum quantity of beer from the Government Warehouse for retail sale. It appears that the writ petitioners could not lift the specified minimum quota. At the request of the petitioners, the petitioners were allowed to lift proportionate quantity of foreign liquor on payment of duty and the movement fees. After the expiry of the period of licence, the impugned demand has been Patna High Court CWJC No.22054 of 2013 (5) dt.12-12-2013 raised on the premise that on account of failure of the writ petitioners to lift the specified minimum quota of beer, the State Government has suffered a loss of revenue in the form of movement fees. It is not in dispute that while lifting the liquor from the Government Warehouse, a licencee is required to pay a movement fee of Rs.12/- per bulk litre for the beer and Rs.12/- per London Proof Litre (LPL) for the foreign liquor.
It is also not in dispute that for every 15 bulk litres of beer, the petitioners were allowed to lift one LPL foreign liquor. Thus, it is the case of the State Government that had the petitioners lifted 15 bulk litres of beer, the State Government would have earned Rs.300/- in the form of duty and movement fee as against that the petitioners were allowed to lift one LPL foreign liquor on which the State Government has earned a revenue of Rs.162/- in the form of duty and movement fee. Thus, for every LPL of foreign liquor lifted by the writ petitioners in lieu of 15 litres of bulk litre of beer, the State Government has suffered a loss of revenue of Rs.168/-. The petitioners are, therefore, liable to make good the said loss. The reliance is placed on the letter dated 22nd February 2013. It appears that the Commissioner of Excise on 22nd February 2013 sent a communication to the Collectors, Assistant Commissioners and Superintendents of Excise to allow the licencees to lift foreign liquor in lieu of the beer provided the State Government did not suffer loss of revenue.
We may note that above referred letter is a mere internal communication. Neither the permit granted to the writ petitioners made it a condition for the writ petitioners to indemnify the State Government for the loss of revenue on Patna High Court CWJC No.22054 of 2013 (5) dt.12-12-2013 account of not lifting the required quantity of beer, nor is there any statutory provision entitling or enabling the State Government to collect such revenue from the licencees. In our opinion, the State Government, in absence of any statutory authority or the terms of the contract, is not justified in recovering the revenue in the form of movement fees in the manner as has been done in the present cases. Besides, we are also not convinced that the loss of revenue alleged by the State Government is real or genuine. For the aforesaid reasons, these Petitions are allowed. Impugned demand in each writ petitions is quashed and set aside. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Sunil/-
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.