GEETA ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, Annex. 4 dated 10.4.1989 may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be restrained from charging permit fee from the petitioner.

(2.) THE brief facts, which are necessary for the convenient disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner No. 1 is a firm and petitioner No.2 is its Manager. Recently the petitioner established itself in the year 1988 at Bhiwadi for manufacturing and sale of thinner for which permit has been given to the petitioner for manufacture and sale of thinner. THE State of Rajasthan issued a Notification under Section 28 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 dated 9.3.1970, whereby the excise duty at the rate of Rs. 0.65 paise per litre was imposed on denatured spirituous preparation whenever it is exported outside the State of Rajasthan and the same duty has now been enhanced from 0.65 to 1.40 each bulk litre as well as the permit fee has also been imposed to the tune of Rs. 2/-per bulk litre for manufacturing and exporting. It is submitted that the petitioner has not started manufacturing but he has obtained permit for importing 9000 litres of denature spirit for the purpose of manufacturing thinner. Recently, non-petitioner No.3 issued a letter dated 10.4.1989 whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit permit fee to the tune of Rs.2/- per bulk litre for import of denature spirit. THE same has been placed on the record as Annex. 4. THErefore, the petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the charging of this permit fee. Incidentally the petitioner though did not specifically state in the writ petition but he has raised the issue regarding excise duty on the denatured spirit and the question of refund and release of bank guarantee given by the petitioner in the litigation in which the levy of excise duty was challenged. Since no averment to that effect has been made in this petition, therefore, it is not necessary for me to go into those questions. More so, the two decisions of this Court have also been cited by Mr. Maheshwari on this question i.e. Jaipur Minerals and Chemicals vs. State of Rajasthan and others (1) and in the case of M/s. Pesticides India vs. THE State of Rajasthan and others (2). THErefore, I need not go into these questions when the same have not been agitated in this writ petition.

(3.) IT may also be relevant to mention here that the ratio laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Kewal Krishan Puri (supra) has undergone a considerable change and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sreenivasa General Traders and others etc. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. (4) observed as under : - "The traditional view that there must be actual quid pro quo for a fee has undergone a sea of change subsequent to decision in AIR 1980 SC 1008. Corelationship between the levy and the services tendered/expected is of general character and not of mathematical exactitude. All that is necessary is that there should be a "reasonable relationship" between the levy of the fee and the services rendered. Moreover, there is no generic difference between a tax and a fee. Both are compulsory exactions of money by public authorities. Compulsion lies in the fact that payment is enforceable by law against a person in spite of his unwillingness or want of consent. A levy in the nature of a fee does not cease to be of that character merely because there is an element of compulsion or coerciveness present in it, nor is it direct relation to the actual service rendered by the authority to each individual who obtains the benefit of the service. IT is now increasingly realized that merely because the collections for the services rendered or grant of a privilege of licence are taken to the consolidated fund of the State and not separately appropriated towards the expenditure for rendering the service is not by itself decisive. IT is also increasingly realized that the element of quid pro quo in the strict sense is not a sine qua non for a fee." (8) This veiw has been further affirmed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kishan Lal vs. State, of Rajasthan (5).