- (1.) This order will dispose of the batch of appeals filed by the State impugning the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra pradesh dated 6-3-1992.
(2.) The respondents are amongst holders of wholesale license (FL 15) , retail license (FL 24) , bar license (FL 17) , storage license for godowns (FL 19) as well as distributor's license (FL 27). These licenses have been issued to the respondents under the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). During the currency of the block of 5 years for which the license was valid, the State Government issued GOMs No. 160, revenue (Ex. Ill) dated 3-3-1990 amending the Schedule to the Andhra pradesh (Foreign and Indian Liquor) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") framed under the Act, whereby license fee in respect of wholesale license for the sale of all kinds of Indian liquor including those which were not consumed on the premises, bar licenses, storage licenses, club licenses and retail licenses were enhanced. The enhancement was directed to come into force w. e. f. 1-4-1990 in the GOMs itself. An Excise year has been defined under the Act as a year commencing from 1st October and ending 30th September. In the GOMs, enhancement was not made retrospectively commencing with the current Excise Year. However, on demand being raised for enhanced license fee for the period 1-4-1990 to 30-9-1990, GOMs No. 160 dated 3-3-1990 was put in issue by the respondents through several writ petitions. A Division Bench of the High court upheld the contention of the respondents that the State Government could not collect increased license fee during the middle of the Excise Year as also the contention that the enhancement was arbitrary. The Division bench, however, rejecting the contention of the State held that the enhanced license fee which was made effective from 1-4-1990 could only apply from the beginning of the next Excise Year i. e. 1-10-1990 irrespective of the fact that it was still within the block of 5 years. It is this finding, which has been put in issue by the State Government before us through this batch of appeals.
(3.) The argument of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant State raised before us, which was also canvassed before the High Court, is that in view of clause (;'v) of the counterpart agreement which was required to be entered into under Section 29 of the Act read with Rule 30 (3) of the Rules, the licensees had bound themselves to pay the license fee, gallonage fee, excise duty and security deposit or any enhanced license fee, gallonage fee, excise duty, security deposit and the like levied from time to time and therefore the licensees could not challenge the enhanced licence fee levied from time to time during the validity of their license.;