9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to provision in Rule 12-A of A.P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1979 as directory or mandatory. Analysis: 1. The petitioners, manufacturers of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, challenged the provision in Rule 12-A of A.P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1979, regarding the time limit for production of excise verification reports, seeking a declaration that it is directory, not mandatory. The rule mandates obtaining a verification report within 21 days after the expiry of the export permit, failing which the excise duty paid accrues to the government or the bank guarantee is invoked. The petitioners argued that the provision is directory, citing a similar case from Kerala High Court where the court distinguished between mandatory and directory provisions in a taxing statute. 2. The court examined the intent of the legislature behind Rule 12-A and the purpose of ensuring excise duty payment on exported liquor. It distinguished between charging provisions in a taxing statute and provisions related to quantification and collection of tax. Referring to legal precedents, the court concluded that while charging sections must be strictly construed, machinery provisions can be interpreted more flexibly to achieve the enforcement of tax. Applying these principles, the court held that the provision for the time limit in Rule 12-A is directory, not mandatory. 3. The court considered the facts of the case where the petitioners failed to produce excise verification certificates within the specified time but explained the delay satisfactorily. The respondents issued fresh export permits without insisting on immediate submission of the certificates, indicating no misuse of permits or non-payment of excise duty in importing states. The court noted that the petitioners eventually provided the required verification reports from importing states before the bank guarantees were invoked. No instances of short consignments were reported. 4. Based on the above analysis and the legal principles applied, the court held that the provision in Rule 12-A, prescribing a 21-day time limit for excise verification reports, is directory. Consequently, the court quashed the action of the respondents in invoking the bank guarantees furnished by the petitioners, deeming it unsustainable. The writ petitions were allowed, with no costs imposed on either party.
|
