DIPANKAR BHATTACHARYYA Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal revision against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Tripura in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1957 by which he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction of the petitioner (Under Section 37 of the Tripura Excise Act, 1296 T.E.) and the sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 15/ - passed by the Magistrate 1st class, Udaipur in Criminal case No. 39 of 1956.

(2.) THE matter arose under the following circumstances: The petitioner has been running a Medical Store at Udaipur under the name and style of Messrs. Devaki DulaI. On 7 -8 -1956 he sold one bottle of Imperial Crown Brandy to one Kali Pada Devnath. On learning this the Excise staff searched the Store on the, same day and seized one big bottle of John Exshaw Brandy and one smalL bottle of Imperial Crown Brandy. The prosecution allied that the petitioner had imported the fore liquor (all the 3 bottles of Brandy are foreign liquor) from outside and had therefore committed an offence Under Section 30 of the Tripura Excise Act which provided that no person shall import into the State from any Foreign State any intoxicant without the permission of the Chief Officer of the Excise Department. The prosecution further alleged that the sale of the Imperial Crown Brandy on 7 -8 -1956 without a license contravenedthe provisions of Section 8 of the same Act under which no person was allowed to sell any intoxicant without taking a written permission or license from 111e Chief Officer of the Excise partment. The petitioner was tried by the first class Magistrate, Udaipur. He admitted the possession of the two bottles of Brandy on 7 -8 -1956 and also the sale of one bottle on the said date. His vlea was that he had purchased them from Calcutta on 11 -5 -1956 and 21 -6 -1956 from the wellknown Chemist and Druggist Firm of Mis. M, Bhattacharjee and Co. not as foreign liquor but as medicinal preparations and that he had sold one bottle on 7 -8 -1956 on a doctor's prescription and that he had not committed any offence. He admitted that he did not have any license for im port or sale of the Brandy.

(3.) THE petitioner took the matter in appeal to the Sessions Judge. In the Sessions Court a new point was raised namely, that the Notification by the Chief Commissioner dated 9 -5 -1956 imposing an excise duty on. foreign liquor imported to Tripura from outride was without authority as it amounted to a tax which under Article 265 of the Constitution cannot be levied or collected save by authority of law. The argument was that authority of law meant legislation and that under Article 246 of the Constitution the Union Government alone has got the power to make laws for Part C States and hence the tax could be imposed only by Parliament.