NAVODAYA WINES GUNTUR MANAGING PARTNER G BASAVAPUNNAIAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P SECRETARY REVENUE F DEPARTMENT HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions are disposed of by a common order since common question of fact and law arises for consideration in these writ petitions.

(2.) Admittedly, the petitioners are the Licensees under the Andhra Pradesh Foreign Liquor and Indian Liquor Rules, 1970 for short 'the Rule'; They sought to import foreign exigible goods on permits issued by the competent authority. The petitioners had applied on February 2, 1987, February 4, 1987, February 5, 1987 and February 11, 1987 under challans seeking permission to import exigible goods. Remarks have been called for on the same day from the Excise Superintendent. Since the Excise Superintendent was on leave, subordinates have conducted the necessary enquiry under Rule 5 of the Rule and kept them pending. Then it was submitted to the Collector on February 5, 1987, February 9, 1987 and February 16, 1987. The Collector of Excise has signed on February 13, 1987 and February 18, 1987. Import permits were issued on February 18, 1987 and February, 20, 1987. Meanwhile, an amendment has come into force enhancing the import licence fee with effect from February 12, 1987. Since the petitioners were asked to pay at the enhanced rate of Rs. 2/-, the petitioners are assailing the legality of the order passed by the authorities.

(3.) The contention of Sri M. Chandrasekhara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that admittedly the petitioners had paid the pravailing counter-veiling duty at the rate of Rs. l-26ps. But there was inaction on the part of the respondents to issue the permits due to the administrative delay, viz., the officers were on leave. By the date of issue of the permits, the amendment rule has come into force and the petitioners were under an obligation to pay under the old rules at the rate of Rs. l-26ps. The petitioners had accordingly paid the amount. The mere administrative delay on the part of the respondents would not be a ground to fasten the liability on the exigible goods at the increased rates from February 12, 1987. When there is no legal obligation cast on the petitioners to pay on the date when they paid the amounts under the challans, they cannot be mulcted with the liability to pay higher charges. In those circumstances, the action taken by the respondents demanding the petitioners to pay higher rate towards the import fee is clearly illegal.