LOKRANJAN BREWERIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, STATE EXCISE DEPARTMENT
Excise License Fees: Differential Treatment Based on Prior Production Average Violates Article 14; Uniform Rate Applies to All Exceeding Production Threshold.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:53758
Decision Date: 09-12-2025
List of Laws
Constitution of India, Article 14; Maharashtra Potable Liquor (Periodicity and Fees for Grant, Renewal or Continuance of License) Rules, 1996; Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973; Right to Information Act, 2005
- Facts: Lokranjan Breweries, a CL-1 license holder for manufacturing country liquor, was directed to pay Rs. 24,94,665 as deficit license fees for the financial year 2016-17. The dispute arose because Lokranjan's production exceeded 10 lakh cases during the year, while its preceding three-year average production was below that threshold. The State insisted on a slab-wise calculation of fees (Rs. 10 per case for the first 10 lakh cases and Rs. 7 per case for the excess), while Lokranjan argued for a uniform rate of Rs. 7 per case based on its overall production exceeding 10 lakh cases. Other CL-1 license holders with production exceeding 10 lakh cases were charged a flat rate of Rs. 7.
- Procedural Posture: Lokranjan Breweries filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging the order of the Revenue Minister that rejected their appeal against the demand for deficit license fees.
- Issue: Did the differential treatment of Lokranjan Breweries, by applying a slab-wise license fee calculation when other CL-1 license holders with overall production exceeding 10 lakh cases were charged a flat rate, constitute arbitrary discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India? The core question is whether the notification stipulated a slab-wise fee structure or a fixed rate based on overall production.
- Holding: Yes, the differential treatment of Lokranjan Breweries was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The High Court quashed the Impugned Order.
- Reasoning: The Court found that the notification did not differentiate between CL-1 license holders based on their preceding three-year average production. The language of the notification stated that "Production exceeding average shall be liable for licence fees as per above prescribed rate per case considering overall production". The court reasoned that the "above prescribed rate" should be applied based on the overall production. Since the State charged all other producers of more than 10 lakh cases uniformly at Rs. 7 per case, Lokranjan, falling in the same category, should receive the same treatment. The court held that there was no rational basis to discriminate against Lokranjan simply because its earlier average production was below 10 lakh cases. The court directed the State to refund or give credit to Lokranjan for any excess amounts paid.
🔒 For Members Only