38.6c New Delhi, India, Thursday, March 12, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Executive

Sale and Consumption of Liquor is a Privilege Granted by The State for Which Special Fee Can Be Levied: Delhi Government Informs Delhi HC

By Manthan Pandit      29 May, 2020 04:12 PM      0 Comments
Sale and Consumption of Liquor is a Privilege

In recent events, the Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Delhi Government, has informed the Delhi High Court that the Delhi Excise Act 1944, and the rules framed under it, rightfully empower the State to not only regulate the buying and selling of liquor but also formulate fledged discrete policies, guidelines, and rules for the regulation of liquor sale.

This information has been obtained from an affidavit in a PIL filed by Praveen Gulati in which he challenges the decision taken by the Delhi Government to impose a Special corona fee of 70% on the sale of liquor.

The affidavit states the following: Theres an element of privilege vis-a-vis the sale/dealing in liquor or for that matter the consumption of liquor, which the state is free to accord or regulate as per the State Excise law. Accordingly, the State also is free to impose and recover a price for grant of such privilege. 

Subordinate legislation or administrative orders can be executed for such a grant of privilege for the sale or consumption/regulation of liquor which the affidavit submits.

The imposition of this special Corona Fee during times of circumstantial distress caused due to the global pandemic of COVID-19, is no more than a combination of price towards the grant of privilege as well as the cost of regulation or supervision.

Furthermore, apart from Delhi, 10 other states also have similar impositions of levy on alcohol, highlight the affidavit.

While challenging the application of sections 26 and 28 of the Delhi Excise Act 1944 in the present case, the affidavit also brings to light that the MRP of liquor is not being raised and the same is only being used as the basis for calculating the amount of the present Special Corona Fee.

The petitioner has challenged the case with arguments that the bare reading of the said Section 26 does not justify or back the generating revenue under a new parameter of Special Corona Fee.

Moreover, the petitioner submits that the government has invoked Section 81 of the Delhi Excise Act 1944 with Mala Fide intentions to charge the Fee. There are claims about section 81(2)(g) which is merely just a procedural and regulatory provision that unusually derives its powers from the other lawful substantive provisions as further provided in the Act. 

The petitioner in his final submission states that since neither section 26, nor Rules 152 and 154 provide for any such category, the Delhi Government cannot legally invoke section 81 to generate revenue under the head of Special Corona Fee.

Corona Virus has made a major impact on the sale of numerous goods and services and has hit the economy in its whole. This particular pandemic-economic crisis is seen with a holistic approach, affecting the day to day services of various economic elements. It has changed the face of the world economy and is going to form a devastating impact on the future statistics as far as finance is concerned. However, it has invoked various sections and acts of Indian laws which were unprecedented in nature.



Share this article:



Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

itat-mumbai-deletes-1159-crore-addition-under-section-69a-brokers-papers-and-retracted-statement-held-insufficient
Trending Judiciary
ITAT Mumbai Deletes ₹11.59 Crore Addition Under Section 69A; Broker’s Papers and Retracted Statement Held Insufficient [Read Order]

Mumbai ITAT deletes ₹11.59 crore addition under Section 69A, holding broker’s papers and a retracted statement insufficient to prove alleged on-money receipts.

11 March, 2026 04:41 PM

TOP STORIES

sc-invokes-article-139a-withdraws-three-decade-old-criminal-revision-petitions-from-allahabad-hc-to-itself
Trending Judiciary
SC Invokes Article 139A, Withdraws Three Decade-Old Criminal Revision Petitions From Allahabad HC To Itself [Read Order]

Supreme Court invokes Article 139A to transfer three decade-old criminal revision petitions from Allahabad High Court to itself, citing exceptional delay and public importance.

06 March, 2026 04:18 PM
deity-may-not-vote-but-constitution-speaks-madras-hc-finds-wilful-contempt-over-delay-in-recovering-507-acres-of-temple-land
Trending Judiciary
“Deity May Not Vote, But Constitution Speaks”: Madras HC Finds Wilful Contempt Over Delay in Recovering 507 Acres of Temple Land [Read Order]

Madras High Court finds wilful contempt by officials for failing to recover 507 acres of temple land, remarking that a deity may not vote but the Constitution must protect its rights.

06 March, 2026 04:38 PM
intra-court-appeal-maintainable-against-ex-parte-ad-interim-orders-affecting-statutory-remedy-rights-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Intra-Court Appeal Maintainable Against Ex Parte Ad Interim Orders Affecting Statutory Remedy Rights: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

Kerala High Court rules intra-court appeals are maintainable against ex parte ad interim orders that affect a party’s right to pursue statutory remedies.

06 March, 2026 04:59 PM
i-was-stalked-in-the-early-days-of-my-practice-justice-savitri-ratho-recalls-experience-at-iwil-national-conference
Trending Legal Insiders
“I Was Stalked in the Early Days of My Practice”: Justice Savitri Ratho Recalls Experience at IWIL National Conference

Justice Savitri Ratho recalls being stalked during her early legal career at the IWIL National Conference, highlighting challenges faced by women in the profession.

09 March, 2026 06:21 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email