VLCC PERSONAL CARE LTD Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As a consequence of the impugned order dtd. 31/7/2020, which was passed by the respondent no. 2, it was based on the basis of the inspection report dtd. 30/6/2020, by virtue of which on its basis, the petitioner's FL-43, licence was quashed by an order of 1/7/2020 and, as a consequence thereto, a penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner to the tune of Rs.8,10,296.00 and also leading to the consequential effect of cancellation/quashing of FL-43 licence granted on 8/6/2020 bearing Licence No. N%izk0/83/VLCC Personal Care Ltd./FL-43 Lic./2020-21.

(2.) Looking to the nature of the controversy and, particularly the argument extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect, as to whether at all the petitioner under the law would be required to have a licence for the purposes of procurement of a denatured spirit for manufacturing of the hand sanitizers, which he was doing prior to the procurement of the FL-43 licence granted on 8/6/2020, which has been cancelled by one of impugned orders, which is under challenge in question and is a subject matter to be answered in the light of the entries, which are contained in relation to the said subject in Schedule VII List 1 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Besides this the issue argued by the petitioner, is that they are procuring denatured spirit, which is not potable liquor, in view of its definition provided under Sec. 3(9) of the Excise Act of 1910, and also because the provisions of Sec. 63, under which the penalty has been imposed, contemplates its applicability on "possession of intoxicant", his argument is that since the Act of 1910, has independently defined intoxicant under its sub-sec. (12) of Sec. 3, the imposition penalty under Sec. 63 will not apply as it applies to intoxicant, which are potable, since denatured spirit, which the petitioner is procuring as raw material, for the finished product of hand sanitizer, it will be outside the scope of the Sec. 63. Hence action is bad.