Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Punjab Excise Act, 1914

16 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

RAVINDER SINGHversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2009 INSC 65430 April 2009Case Partly allowed

Ravinder Singh was stopped while transporting five bottles of illicit liquor and was convicted under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, receiving a six‑month imprisonment. He appealed, contending that at the time of the offence (25 May 1995) no minimum sentence was prescribed, and that the amendment intro

M/S MOHAN MEAKIN LTD.versusEXCISE AND TAXATION COMMISSIONER, HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 139827 November 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Mohan Meakin Ltd. appealed against the Himachal Pradesh Excise and Taxation Commissioner challenging the High Court’s view that excise duty on beer became payable at the wort (fermentation) stage under Rule 10(3.4) of the Punjab Breweries Rules. The Supreme Court examined the definitions of “excisable article”, “intoxi

RAJESH KUMAR AND ANR.versusSTATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

2008 INSC 24925 February 2008Disposed off

The appellants were arrested for allegedly smuggling whisky from Haryana to Delhi; samples seized were sent to the Excise Control Laboratory, which reported the substance as whisky. They were convicted under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment. On appeal, the quest

UGAR SUGAR WORKS LTD.versusDELHI ADMINIS1RATION AND ORS.

2001 INSC 16322 March 2001Case Allowed

Ugar Sugar Works Ltd., a manufacturer of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, challenged a Delhi Administration notification issued under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and Delhi Liquor Licence Rules, 1976 that imposed Minimum Sales Figures (MSF) as a condition for obtaining an L‑1 licence for the excise year 2000‑2001. The petiti

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.versusJAGE RAM AND ORS.

1980 INSC 9021 April 1980Case Partly allowed

The respondents won the auction for a retail liquor vend in March 1967, paid a security deposit and began operations, but failed to pay the first two instalments of the licence fee, leading to cancellation of their licence and a re‑auction of the vend at a much lower price. The respondents filed writ petitions challeng

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.versusMIS. DEVANS MODERN BREWERIES AND ANR. ETC.

2003 INSC 65320 November 2003Case Partly allowed

The State of Punjab and the State of Kerala imposed import fees on liquor imported into their territories. Licensees challenged these fees, arguing they were unconstitutional taxes that violated Articles 301, 303 and 304 of the Constitution and that liquor trade is "res extra commercium". The Court held that the fees a

MOHAN MEAKIN LTD.versusSTATE OF H.P. & ORS.

2008 INSC 148118 December 2008Appeal(s) allowed

Mohan Meakin Ltd., a manufacturer of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, imported malt spirit of over‑proof strength (rectified spirit) into Himachal Pradesh and was levied a permit fee under the State's 1996‑97 excise policy. The company contended that the State lacked legislative competence to impose such a fee because indus

STATE OF PUNJABversusPREM SAGAR & ORS.

2008 INSC 65813 May 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents were convicted under Section 61(1) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 for illegally transporting 2,000 litres of rectified spirit and were sentenced by the trial court to one year imprisonment. The High Court, noting that the offence occurred 19 years earlier, reduced the sentence by granting probation unde

INTERNATIONAL SPIRITS AND WINES ASSOCIATION OF INDIAversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 17812 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The International Spirits and Wines Association of India challenged the Haryana Liquor License (Amendment) Rules, 2017 which introduced Rule 24(i‑eeee) creating a single L‑1BF licence for the entire state to trade in imported foreign liquor. The issue was whether the Financial Commissioner, acting under Section 59 of t

GOVERNMENT OF HARYANAversusHARYANA BREWERY LTD. AND ANR.

2002 INSC 7512 February 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of Haryana issued a show‑cause notice demanding excise duty on beer brewed by Haryana Brewery Ltd, alleging that the wastage in the brewing process exceeded the statutory allowance. The brewery contended that duty could be levied only after the beer became fit for human consumption and that the 7% wastag

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.versusM/S SURINDER KUMAR AND CO. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 147011 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, who held licences to sell Indian-made foreign liquor in Ludhiana, had their licences cancelled by the Excise Department on grounds of illegalities. They filed writ petitions alleging that the Minister for Excise acted mala fide in the cancellation. The Punjab & Haryana High Court directed the responden

STATE OF HARYANAversusKRLSHAN & ANR.

[2017] 7 S.C.R. 2519 July 2017Case Partly allowed

In 1980 a hooch tragedy in Kalanwali, Haryana, caused 36 deaths and 44 permanent blindings after victims consumed liquor adulterated with methyl alcohol. Krishan and Som Nath, licensees of the liquor vend, were convicted by the trial court under IPC sections 302, 328 and 120B. The High Court acquitted them, holding tha

CHAND GUPTA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2009 INSC 7598 May 2009Dismissed

In 1992 the owners of M/s Shiva Enterprises were found by police to have liquor in their godown exceeding the quantity authorized under a transport permit. They were convicted under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 for unlawful possession and sentenced to three years' imprisonment and a fine. On appeal t

ANUJ GARG & ORS.versusHOTEL ASSOCIATION OF INDIA & ORS.

2007 INSC 12426 December 2007Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of Section 30 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, which barred men under 25 and all women from employment in premises serving liquor. The Court held that the provision violates Articles 14, 15 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution because it is an unreasonable classificatio

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.versusLAL CHAND & ORS

1984 INSC 992 May 1984Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Haryana auctioned a licence to vend country liquor; the highest bidders, Lal Chand and others, were provisionally accepted but failed to deposit the required security and later argued that a neighbouring Punjab licence breached inter‑state conditions. The State re‑auctioned the licence at a lower price and

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search