9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Government from time to time on industrial alcohol obtained from a distillery. 2. The Appellant is a manufacturer of Ethyl Acetate, the basic raw material for which is industrial alcohol. The Appellant has been receiving allotments of denatured spirit from the Respondents since 1972. By way of an amendment to Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Denatured Spirit and Denatured Spirituous Preparations Ruled, 1971 (1971 Rules for brevity), the collection of a gallonage fee, under the head of privilege fees, at the rate of 1 per bulk litre was introduced. The Appellant filed a writ petition in 1995 contending that the levy and collection of such an amount without rendering any service is illegal, arbitrary and without justification. The High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount collected as gallonage fees with interest at 18% per annum. The Appellant's case was that the State cannot make any law in purported exercise of its legislative competence with reference to Entry 8 of List II to levy privilege fees or any other fees in respect of alcoholic liquors which are not meant or fit for human consumption. 3. The High Court placed reliance on Synthetics and Chemicals Limited, wherein this Court observed as follows: "The State, in exercise of powers under Entry 8 of List II and by appropriate law may, however, regulate and that regulation could be to prevent the conversion of alcoholic liquors for industrial use to one for human consumption and for the purpose of regulation, the regulatory fees only could be j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant. There was found to be no reason to hold that the administrative fee at the rate of 50 paise per bulk litre was excessive. 4. Furthermore, the Appellant's plea that the Rule could not have been made efficacious with retrospective effect was dismissed in light of the fact that the competency of the rule making authority to impart retrospective effect was not in dispute and no other ground was made out to support this contention. The Single Judge accordingly dismissed the writ petition on 21.10.2003. The Appellant's Review Petition was also dismissed on 2.7.2004. 5. The Appellant has now filed these Appeals before us, contending that the abovementioned amendment cannot be given retrospective effect, and that the fees should be levie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
