RAVINDER REDDY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a licensee in respect of Suryapet group of arrack shops for the excise year 1982-1983. The annual minimum guaranteed quantity (MGQ) of arrack which he under took to lift for that year, was 5,99,250 bulk litres, divided into twelve monthly quotas. He was also the licencee for the said group for the previo s year, i.e- excise year 1981-82 when the annual MGQ was 3.09.000 bulk litres. In both the years he failed to lift the total minimum guaranteed quantity undertaken by him, whereupon the authorities sought to recover the issue price of the unlifted quantity from him in accordance with the rules, which promoted the petitioner to approach this court by way of this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner's contention is that, as ruled by a Full Bench of this court in A. Brahmanandam vs. Tahsildar, Gannavatam supra (1) the respondents are not entitled to collect the excise duty component of the issue price on the unlifced quantity, for the same reason and as held by the other decisions of this court, it is contended, the sales tax and transportation charges also cannot be collected with respect to the unlifted quantity, or short drawn quantity, as it may be called.

(3.) The learned Government pleader for Excise, however, contended that the decision of the Full Bench, referred to above, is no longer operative because of the retrospective amendment of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, by the Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act 10 of 1984, which amended Sections 17 and 23 of the Excise Act and which amendment was brought about precisely to remove the basis pointed out by, and to get over the decision of the Full bench. The learned Government pleader relied upon the recent Bench decision of this court in M. Subba Rao vs. Superintendent of Excise where it has been held that, by virtue of the said amended provisions the principle of the aforesaid Full Bench decision is no longer operative and that, it is open to the state to collect the full issue price of the short drawn quantity. When faced with the bench decision Mr. Koka Raghava Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the said decision a reconsideration and put forward the reasons according to which, in his submission, the said decision is not correct.