M/S. GUPTA MODERN BREWERIES versus STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS.

M/S. GUPTA MODERN BREWERIES versus STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS.

Rule 17 of the Jammu and Kashmir Distillery Rules, 1946, is ultra vires the parent Act for lack of statutory backing and guidelines, is manifestly arbitrary and unjust, and amounts to imposition of a tax (not a fee) without legislative authority, contravening Article 265 of the Constitution. There is no quid pro quo between the levy and services rendered.

Parties
Appellant: Gupta Modern Breweries; Respondents: State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Imposition of Fee or Tax by Rule, Delegation of Legislative Power, Distinction Between Tax and Fee, Validity of Rule Under Excise Act, Quid Pro Quo, Refund of Unlawful Levy
Taxation Constitutional Law Excise Law Imposition of Fee or Tax by Rule Delegation of Legislative Power Distinction Between Tax and Fee Validity of Rule Under Excise Act Quid Pro Quo +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gupta Modern Breweries

Appellant

State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 17 of the Jammu and Kashmir Distillery Rules, 1946, authorizing recovery of salary of Excise Department staff from the appellant, is ultra vires the parent Act and the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the levy under Rule 17 is a fee or a tax
  3. 3 Whether Rule 17 has statutory backing and sufficient guidelines

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 17 of the Jammu and Kashmir Distillery Rules, 1946, is ultra vires the parent Act for lack of statutory backing and guidelines, is manifestly arbitrary and unjust, and amounts to imposition of a tax (not a fee) without legislative authority, contravening Article 265 of the Constitution. There is no quid pro quo between the levy and services rendered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Orders of High Court set aside
  • Respondents directed to refund payment made by appellant with interest at the statutory rate