NDLI: State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Y. Prabhakara Reddy

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Andhra Pradesh Excise Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (17 of 1968)
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Others
Headnote	Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968: ss.2(10), 17, 21-23/Andhra Pradesh (Arrack, Retail Vend Special Conditions of Licences) Rules, 1969: rr .7, 11 & 15 Andhra Pradesh (Lease of Right to Sell Liquor in Retail) Rules 1969: rr.2(ix), 3, 16, 18 & 22/Andhra Pradesh Excise (Amendment) Act, 1984-Minimum guaranteed quantity of arrack short drawn-Contractor whether entitled to deduct from issue price excise duty component-Issue price-Connotation of. Section 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act 1968, as it stood at the relevant time, provided for the grant of lease for the manufacture or sale of an intoxicant. It also provided that a lease shall not take effect until a licence under the Act was also issued. Section 23 provided that the sum accepted in consideration for the grant of any lease under s.17 was to be the excise duty payable in respect of that excisable article.Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh (Lease of Right to Sell Liquor in Retail) Rules, 1969 prescribes that every lease of right to sell liquor in retail shall be granted by auction. Rule 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Arrack Retail Vend Special Conditions of Licences) Rules, 1969 requires the licences to purchase arrack from the distillery, warehouse or depot allotted by the Government and to pay 'issue price' as notified. Rule 15 provides for the purchase of a specified minimum guaranteed quantity of arrack every month and for the adjustment of the issue price in case of any short-fall in the purchase of the minimum guaranteed quantity of liquor. A question arose as to whether under the Excise-Law prevailing in the State, the Government was entitled to claim from the excise contractors, who failed to lift -the minimum guaranteed quantity of liquor, the amount said to represent the excise duty component in the issue price of liquor relating to such unlifted quantity of liquor. A Full Bench of three Judges of the High Court in V. Narasimha Rao v. Superintendent of Excise, (AIR 1974 AP 157) held In favour of the Government. It took the view that three items, namely, duty, cost and sales tax constituted the issue price. This view, however, was over-ruled by the Full Bench of Five Judges of the same High Court In Atluri Brahmanandam v. Tahsildar of Gannavaram, (AIR 1977 AP 196) wherein it was held that the Government could not do so. It treated the excise duty as a severable element of issue price. That judgment was assailed in the appeals and petitions filed by the Government.To nullify the effect of that judgment and to validate the demands raised by the Government the State Legislature enacted the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Amendment) Act X of 1984. The amended s.17 provides for grant of lease or licence for exclusive privilege of manufacture, supply by wholesale or sale of any liquor or other intoxicants. The new s.23 empowers the competent officer to accept payment of a sum in consideration of the grant of lease or licence or both for the exclusive privilege in respect of the liquor or any other intoxicant under s.17. Section 4 of the Amending Act, provides for the validation of earlier demands made in respect of issue price of short drawn minimum guaranteed quantity of liquor. Demands raised pursuant to the Amending Act were upheld by the High Court by a later judgment. The aggrieved excise contractors filed appeals to this court. Some of the contractors who bad originally succeeded because of the decision of Five Judges Bench and were again called upon to make good the deficit after the Amending Act was passed, having failed in the High Court filed special leave petitions to this Court. It was contended for the aggrieved contractors that what was sought to be recovered from them was excise duty on unlifted quantity of liquor which was not authorised by the provisions of the Act, as the excise duty being a part of the issue price it could only relate to liquor drawn by them and not pertain to undrawn liquor, that without amending ss.21 and 22 of the Excise Act the amendment of s.23 affected by the Legislature led nowhere towards achieving the result aimed at by the Legislature and that the Legislature could not validate the demands earlier made and struck down by the Courts, merely by enacting that the demands were to be deemed to be valid without removing the vices and the defects.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy
Neutral Citation	1987 INSC 69
Petitioner	State Of Andhra Pradesh
Respondent	Y. Prabhakara Reddy
SCR	[1987] 2 S.C.R. 513
Judgement Date	1987-03-04
Case Number	437

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Y. Prabhakara Reddy

Please Log-in to view this content

Y. Lakshminarayana Reddy and Others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Nageswara Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Y. Satyanarayan Reddy Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, A.p.

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. K. Venkata Reddy & Others

Y. Ramanjaneyulu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Y. Basavadevudu and Anr.

Y. Sai Satya Prasad & Ors. Vs. D. Prabhakara Rao & Ors.

Anna Reddy Sambasiva Reddy & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

S. Gopal Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Y. Prabhakara Reddy

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Y. Prabhakara Reddy

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Y. Lakshminarayana Reddy and Others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Nageswara Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Y. Satyanarayan Reddy Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, A.p.

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. K. Venkata Reddy & Others

Y. Ramanjaneyulu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Y. Basavadevudu and Anr.

Y. Sai Satya Prasad & Ors. Vs. D. Prabhakara Rao & Ors.

Anna Reddy Sambasiva Reddy & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

S. Gopal Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Y. Prabhakara Reddy