A P PAPER MILLS LIMITED Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-2000-9-148
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on September 28,2000

ANDHRA PRADESHPAPER MILLS LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

D.P. Mohapatra, J. - (1.) Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) No. 12499 of 1997.
(2.) The controversy raised in all these appeals relates to validity of the revision of licence fee under the Andhra Pradesh Factories Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') which was introduced by the State Government by G. O. Ms. No. 154, E and F Deptt. Dated 26-7-1994. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in the cases, they were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(3.) The appellants who are owners of factories located in the State of Andhra Pradesh challenged the levy of revised licence fee by filing writ petitions before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The challenge was on several grounds some of which are not relevant for the purpose of the present proceedings. Suffice it to state that the main grounds on which the revised licence fee was challenged were - (i) that the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') does not impose licence fee as there is no charging section: (ii) that the fee imposed amounts to a fee on production of goods and therefore it is a 'tax'. The State has no power to levy the tax; (iii) that the Rules or the Act do not provide any criteria or guidelines for fixation of the licence fee; (iv) that collection of exorbitant fee to meet the State budget is a colourable exercise of power; so there is legal mala fide in enhancing the licence fee; (v) that the State has no power to impose or enhance the licence fee for any alleged services rendered or proposed to be rendered under other legislations other than the Act, as the power is delegated under the Act only; (vi) that the proposed strengthening of the department and additional activities which are to be approved by the State Government cannot be a ground for revising the licence fee prior to increasing such expenditure. The proposal of strengthening the department is with reference to other enactments also; (vii) the classification shown in the Schedule to Rule 5 itself shows that the classification is discriminatory and unreasonable. So it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.