Privilege fee for license transfer remains payable under Prohibition Rules despite court-sanctioned corporate amalgamation scheme.

The Petitioner company acquired the entire shareholding of M/s. Chitali Distillery Limited (a Government of Maharashtra undertaking) via a Share Purchase Agreement dated July 10, 2008

Subsequently, a Scheme of Arrangement for amalgamation was sanctioned by the High Courts of Bombay and Karnataka, vesting all assets and licenses in the Petitioner

Initially, the State Excise Department clarified that since only shares were transferred, no privilege fees for license transfer were required

However, when the Petitioner applied on March 22, 2011, to formally change the names on the licenses (Forms ‘I’, ‘PLL’, and ‘DS-I’), the Respondents demanded privilege fees totaling ₹1,51,96,500/-, calculated at five times the license fee under the amended Rule 5 of the Bombay Prohibition (Privileges Fees) Rules, 1954

The Petitioner paid the amount under protest and challenged the demand through an appeal/revision, which was dismissed by the Minister of State Excise on August 23, 2018

1. Whether the formal name change in excise licenses pursuant to a court-sanctioned merger constitutes a "transfer from one name to another" attracting privilege fees under Rule 5

2. Whether the liability for fees should be determined based on the date of the Share Purchase Agreement (2008) or the date of the application for name change (2011)

3. Whether the demand of ₹10,000/- for the transfer of the DS-I license was legally sustainable

Rule 5 of the Bombay Prohibition (Privileges Fees) Rules, 1954, as amended on July 7, 2010, which mandates that the fee for transferring ‘PLL’ or ‘I’ licenses from one name to another shall be five times the fee chargeable for grant or renewal

The principle that dealing in liquor is a "privilege" granted by the State, not a fundamental right, allowing the State to impose regulatory fees

Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, regarding the vesting of assets under a Scheme of Arrangement, noting that while such schemes vest rights, they do not automatically exempt a party from statutory obligations or fees under independent enactments like the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949

The Court rejected the Petitioner’s argument that "transfers" via a court-sanctioned scheme are exempt from fees, holding that while the Scheme vested the licenses in the Petitioner, the formal act of changing the name in the Excise records triggered the State's power to levy privilege fees under the Rules

Regarding the timing, the Court held that the relevant date was not the 2008 share transfer, but the March 2011 application for license transfer; therefore, the higher fees introduced by the 2010 amendment were applicable

The Court observed that the Petitioner, by seeking the privilege of transfer, became liable for the statutory consequences regardless of the fact that the license previously stood in the name of a government-owned entity

Regarding the DS-I license, the Court found that the Respondents failed to provide a statutory basis for demanding ₹10,000/- when the applicable rule prescribed only ₹2,000/-, emphasizing that the State’s regulatory power must be exercised within the limits of the written law

The Court partly allowed the Writ Petition; it quashed the demand for the DS-I license to the extent it exceeded the legally prescribed amount (₹2,000/-) and ordered a refund of the excess amount within eight weeks