MEKA NAGESWARA RAO Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner was carrying on business in retail sale of liquor at Angalakuduru village. He was granted licence Under Rule 23 (x) of A.P. Foreign Liquor and Indian Liquor Rules, 1970 (for short" the Rules"), on 14-10-1987 for a block period of 5 years. He, however, stopped business on 30-09-90. The 2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 12-10-1989 directing him to pay an amount of Rs.50,847.00as differential licence fee for the period from 28-3-88 to 30-09-90, stating that Angalakuduru village falls within the limits of 1 km. from the periphery of Tenali Municipality due to the inclusion of Sullanabad into Tenali Municipality. The Petitioner's explanation was rejected and the petitioner was directed to pay the amount demanded, by order dated 30-12-1989. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Excise, Guntur, who dismissed the appeal by Order dated 8-3-91. This order is under challenge in this writ petition,

(2.) The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the conditions of licence or the provisions of the Act or the rules framed thereunder, do not authorise the authorities to collect the differential licence fee with retrospective effect.

(3.) It is true that at the time of grant of licence to the petitioner on 14-10-87 the Shop was lying within Anglakuduru village of Tenali Taluk. By G.O. Ms. No.175 Municipal Administration dated 22-03-1988 the business premises fell within the belt area of 1 km from the periphery of Tenali Municipality. As per Rule 25 of the Rules the licence fee is payable depending upon the density of the population of the area in which the shop was located. Initially when the licence was granted as the shop was located in Angalakuduru village, which is a Gram Panchayat the licence fee was fixed as per the population of the said village. Subsequently after the above G.O. was issued since the premises fell within 1 km periphery of Tenali Municipality and the density of population of the said Municipality was more, the licence fee was fixed at higher slab. The petitioner, therefore has to pay the differential licence fee from the date of thcaboveG.O. i.e., 22-03-1988. Admittedly the petitioner has executed a counter-part agreement simultaneous to the grant of licence, undertaking to pay any increased levy in the licence fee during the licensing period. Having thus agreed upon, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the demand for differential licence fee. It is also not the case that the licence fee is contrary to Rules or arbitrary. The only grievance of the petitioner was that he was asked to pay the licence fee retrospectively. We do not find any retro-activity' in the demand. The petitioner was asked to pay from the date of the above G.O. i.e., 22-03-88, on which day the village has fallen within the periphery of Tenali Municipality and from which date the petitioner is liable to pay the enhanced licence fee. It is true that the notice to pay the said amount was issued in October. 1989. But the date of notice is irrelevant to fix the liability of the petitionerto pay the increased licence fee. The petitioner has been doing business from 1987, very much prior to the date from which he was asked to pay the amount. Liability to pay the increased amount arose on the said date.