THE STATE OF BOMBAY versus M/S. S. S. MIRANDA LIMITED

Citation: [1960] 3 S.C.R. 397 · Decided: 25-03-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
397 
any opinion on this part of the appellant's argument. 
i96o 
All we wish t,_o say is that we would inevitably have. 
I 
d 
R. P. Kapur 
to consider the evidence ourse ves an to appreciate 
v. 
it before we pronounce any opinion on the validity or State of Punjab 
otherwise of the argument. It is not a· case where the 
-
appellant can justly contend that on the face of the re- Gajendragadkar J. 
cord the charge levelled against him is unsustainable •. 
The appellant no doubt very strongly feels that on the 
relevant evidence it would not be reasonably possible 
to sustain the charge but that is a matter on which 
the appellant will have to satisfy the ma.gistrate who 
takes cognisance of the case. We would, however, 
like to emphasise that in rejecting the appellant's 
prayer for quashing the proceedings at this stage we 
are expressing no opinion one way or the other on 
the merits of the case. 
There is another consideration which has weighed 
in our minds in dealing with this appeal. The appel-
lant has 'come to this Court under Art. 136 of the 
Constitution against 
the decision of the Pµnjab 
High Court; and the High Court has refused to 
exercise its inherent jurisdiction in favour of the 
appellant. Whether or not ,we would have come to 
the same conclusion if we were dealing _with the 
matter ourselves under s. 561-A is not really very 
material because in the present case what we have to de-
cide is whether the judgment under appeal is erroneous 
in law so as to call for our interference under Art. 136. 
Under the circumstances of this ca§e we are unable 
to answer this question in favour of the appellant. 
The result is the appeal fails and is dismjssed. 
Appeal dismissed. 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY 
v. 
M/S. S. S. MIRANDA LIMITED 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) 
Excise Duty-Imposition at successive stages of transportation of 
excisable article-Validity of-Bombay Abkari Act, z878 (Bom. V of 
I878), SS. IO, I9 & I9A. 
. The respondent held a trade and import licence for foreign 
liquor-as well as a velldor's licence under the Bombay Abkari 
51 
1960 
March 25. 
398 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1960] 
r960 
Act. It kept liquor in a bonded warehouse. 
On April z, 1948, 
. the appellant asked the respondent to remove the liquor from 
State of Bombay the bonded warehouse after paying the necessary excise duty. 
v. 
The respondent paid the duty, got the transport permits and 
s. s. Mimnda Ltd. took over the liquor, some of which it sold. On December 16, 
1948, the appellant issued a notification doubling the duty on 
foreign liquor and called upon the respondent to pay the addi-
tional duty on the liquor which was still lying in its godown. 
The respondent contended that the imposition of additional duty 
on the stock on which duty had already been paid at the time of 
its issue from the bonded warehouse was illegal. The appellants' 
case was that the respondent was bound to pay the duty prevail-
ing on the transport of liquor at the time of transporting the 
same from its premises to another place within the State of 
Bombay: 
Wanchoo ]. 
H dd, that the imposition of the additional excise duty was 
illegal.• Once the duty had been paid the liquor could be trans-
ported free from any further imposition, except where it was 
transported to a region where the duty was different from the 
region where the duty was paid. There was no power in the 
State Government to impose duty at every movement during the 
course of the trade. Though there was power in the legislature 
to levy duty at every movement of liquor, it had not exercised 
that power ; nor had it delegated such power to the State 
Government. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal 
_, 
No. 21 of 1956. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated 
August 12, 1954, of the Bombay High Court in Appeal 
No. 45 of 1954, arising out of the judgment and decree 
dated February 17, 1954, of the said High Court in 
Suit No. 246 of 1956. 
H.J. Umrigar, N. N. Keswani and R. H. Dheba1·, 
for the appellant. 
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India, S. M. 
Dubash and G. Gopalakrishnan, for the respondents. 
1960. March 25. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
WANCHOO, J.-This is an appeal on a certificate 
granted by the Bombay High Court. The brief facts 
necessary for its disposal are these. Messrs. S. S. 
Miranda· Ltd. (hereinafter called the respondent) is a 
company and was holding a trade and import licence 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.