Petitioner company sought refund of excise duty paid to Karnataka. Court held that petitioner was only liable for countervailing duty in Punjab due to labeling conditions. Writ petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No.8794 of 1993
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.8794 of 1993
Date of decision: 18.01.2012
Khoday Distilleries Limited
-----Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Punjab and others
----Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present:Mr. G.S.Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
Ajay Kumar Mittal,J .
CWP No.8794 of 1993
2
State where manufacture had taken place i.e. the State of Karnataka is required to be refunded to it. The request of the petitioner for refund of the amount having been declined, it has filed the present writ petition.
“6. That the petitioner has rightly paid countervailing duty to the State of Punjab on the liquors imported into the State for consumption within the State of Punjab under the provisions of Punjab Excise Act, 1914, which are based on the cardinal principle “duty follows Consumption” and provide similar rate of countervailing Duty as of the Excise Duty on the goods produced within the State meant for consumption within State. The petitioner has reproduced the provisions of Karnataka Excise Act, which are not relevant so far as the countervailing duty chargeable in the State of Punjab is referable to the provisions of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914. If any provision of the Karnataka Excise Act, providing the levy of duty on the goods not meant for sale or consumption in that State, is harsh or bad in law, the petitioner could challenge that provision. The petitioner was allowed to import the liquors into the State of Punjab after approval of their labels under the provision of Punjab Excise Act, which bore a declaration “duty not paid to Karnataka State” and “for sale in the State of Punjab only”. The duty was, therefore, rightly paid in the State of Punjab and any claim of refund of duty at this stage is illegal and unwarranted.”
CWP No.8794 of 1993
3
with the stipulation that labels would be in conformity with the marking “Duty not paid to Karnataka State” meaning thereby that no excise duty had been paid in the State of Karnataka. Once that is so, there appears to be no justification in the claim of the petitioner from the State of Punjab, more so when the State has categorically stated that it is only the countervailing excise duty as per provisions of the Punjab Excise Act which has been recovered from the petitioner. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
(Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge January 18, 2012 (M.M.Kumar) ‘gs’ Judge.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of excise duty paid to Karnataka when countervailing duty was levied by Punjab?
Whether the labeling condition 'Duty not paid to Karnataka State' bars the claim for refund?
Khoday Distilleries Limited
The State of Punjab
Ajay Kumar Mittal
M.M. Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
