Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

U.P. Excise Act, 1910

12 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

STATE OF U.P.versusM/S MODI DISTILLERY ETC. ETC.

1995 INSC 50929 August 1995Dismissed

The State of Uttar Pradesh sought to levy excise duty on various categories of wastage arising in the manufacture of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL): (A) wastage exported outside the State, (B) wastage during transport of high‑strength spirit, (C) loss due to obscuration in rum production, and (D) pipeline loss. The

SYNTHETICS & CHEMICALS LTD. ETC.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

1989 INSC 32125 October 1989Case Allowed

The petitioners, industrial users of ethyl alcohol, challenged state statutes imposing a vend fee and other levies on industrial alcohol, arguing that such taxes were beyond the legislative competence of the states. The Court examined the constitutional distribution of powers, focusing on Entries 84 of List I, 51 and 8

STATE OF U.P. THR. SECRETARY AND ORS.versusPREM CHOPRA

2022 INSC 34625 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh sought recovery of license fee and interest from Prem Chopra for a retail liquor shop licence for FY 2002-03. Prem Chopra surrendered the licence, was asked to pay the balance, and filed a writ petition which resulted in an interim stay of the recovery proceedings subject to a partial deposit

STATE OF U.P. & ORSversusM/S LALTA PRASAD VAISH AND SONS

2024 INSC 81223 October 2024

The Supreme Court of India, in a 9-judge bench reference, addressed the scope of Entry 8 of List II of the Seventh Schedule (intoxicating liquors) and its interplay with Entry 52 of List I (industries controlled by the Union). The case arose from a challenge by the State of Uttar Pradesh against a High Court decision t

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHversusKISHORI LAL MINOCHA

1979 INSC 27621 December 1979Dismissed

The State of Uttar Pradesh sued Kishori Lal for the shortfall of Rs 20,100 that arose when the excise licences he won at a public auction were resold at a lower price because he failed to deposit one‑sixth of the bid amount as required by the Excise Rules. The respondent argued that no contract was completed under Arti

VAM ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD. AND ANR.versusU. P. EXCISE ACT 1910

1997 INSC 4521 January 1997Dismissed

Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. and two other firms, licensed to produce industrial alcohol (rectified spirit) for chemical manufacturing, challenged Uttar Pradesh's Notification No. 25/Licence/Part‑3 dated 18‑May‑1990 which imposed a denaturation fee of 7 paise per litre under Section 41 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910. The p

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.versusGARIB DASS AND ORS.

1996 INSC 134520 November 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged the High Court's declaration that Section 37-A of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 was void for violating Article 14 because it allowed an exemption for foreign liquor under Section 20(2). While the appeal was pending, the legislature omitted Section 20(2) and substituted a new Section 37

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.versusVAM ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD. AND ORS.

2003 INSC 56617 October 2003Dismissed

The State of Uttar Pradesh imposed a licence fee of 15 paise per litre on specially denatured spirit (SDS) under Rule 3(a) of the 1978 Rules, which the respondents challenged as an illegal tax. The Supreme Court examined whether the fee was a genuine regulatory fee supported by a quid pro quo relationship with the cost

M/S. SOMAIYA ORGANICS (INDIA) LTD.versusSTATE OF UTT AR PRADESH AND ANR.

2001 INSC 21117 April 2001Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Mis. Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd., manufactured industrial alcohol and was initially exempt from a vend fee under the U.P. Excise Act, 1910. The exemption was withdrawn in 1979 and the company filed writ petitions; the High Court ordered it to give a bank guarantee and/or deposit amounts in a separate a

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.versusJAGJEET SINGH AND ORS.

2003 INSC 55116 October 2003Disposed off

The State of Uttar Pradesh ordered the closure of liquor shops licensed to Jagjeet Singh and others under Section 59 of the U.P. Excise Act during curfew periods caused by communal disturbances. The licensees sought remission of licence fees for the closure period, but the State refused. The High Court directed the Sta

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.versusDELHI CLOTH MILLS & ANR.

1990 INSC 3099 October 1990Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh sought to recover differential excise duty on excess wastage of military rum that was exported by the respondents, Delhi Cloth Mills, under a lower export duty rate. The respondents argued that the duty on excess wastage could not be levied, and the Allahabad High Court quashed the demand. Th

KESAR ENTERPRISES LTD.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2011 INSC 4676 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

Kesar Enterprises Ltd., a handling agent for an export consignment of rectified spirit, was served notice to pay excise duty and interest after one of fifteen tank wagons failed to reach the port. The State argued that penalty could be imposed under Rule 633(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Excise Manual despite the High Court’

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