PESTICIDES INDIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first writ petition has been filed challenging the vires of Section 3(4), Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') defining 'excisable article', Chapter IV -A, Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956 (hereinafter called the Rules) relating to the denatured spirituous preparations and notification dated August 20, 1979 (Annexure 5) adding therein 'Denatured Spirituous Preparations' in Rule 69B of the Rules and declaring that 'Malathion Technical', manufactured by the petitioner, is not an excisable article. The second writ petition has been filed for quashing the notification dated March 16, 1982 (Annexure 2) enhancing the permit fee leviable under Rule 69B of the Rules from 10 paisa to Re. 1/ - per liter on denatured spirtituous preparations and for refunding amount of Rs. 1,53,000/ - collected in excess as such.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner, in short, is as follows: It is a public limited company. It carries on business of manufacturing pesticides, insecticides and other chemical preparations including Malathion Technical after obtaining necessary license. For manufacture of Malathion Technical, denatured spirit is used only for cleaning and removing certain chemicals. It does not contain any trace of spirit it is very poisonous. It cannot be consumed by human being. By notification dated August 20, 1979 'Denatured Spirituous Preparations' was also added in Rule 69B of the Rules. On the audit objection, the respondent No. 3 issued demand notice (Annexure 6) for depositing Rs. 17,800/ - as permit fee on the Malathion Technical. Objections (Annexure 7) were unsuccessfully filed. Appeal (Annexure 9) was filed before the Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, Udaipur against this order. It was also dismissed by his order dated August 17, 1983 (Annexure 10). By notification dated March 16, 1982 (Annexure 2 of the second writ petition), permit fees for denatured spirit and denatured spirituous preparations has been enhanced from 10 paisa to Re. 1/ - per litre.

(3.) IN reply, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the permit fee is being charged as a part of the regulatory measures and it is not contrary to any provision of the constitution or any law. He relied upon Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P. : AIR1990SC1927 , Bileshwar Khand Udhyog Khedut Sahakari Mandali Ltd. v. State of Gujrat AIR 1992 SC 872 and Gujchem Distillers India Ltd. v. State of Gujrat : [1992]1SCR675 . He further contended that to supervise the misuse of spirit meant for industrial purpose, proper steps are required to be taken for supervision and regulation, as such fee has been imposed, concept of quid pro quo has recently undergone a considerable change, it is not possible to co -relate services rendered with the amount of fees in a mathematical manner, it is of regulatory nature and the element of quid pro quo in the strict sense is not a sine qua non for a fee. He relied upon Kewal Krishna Puri v. State of Punjab : [1979]3SCR1217 and Shreenivasa General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh : [1983]3SCR843 . He also contended that the controversies raised in these cases are fully covered by the decisions given by Division Benches of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ petition No. 6033 of 1992 M/s Geeta Enterprises v. State of Rajasthan decided on May 28, 1993 and D.B. Civil Writ petition No. 2969 of 1993, M/s Good - will Paints Industries v. State of Rajasthan decided on October 14, 1993. He lastly contended that Malathion Technical is a denatured spitituous preparation.