JUDGMENT Honble Sunil Ambwani, J.—M/s. Daurala Foods & Beverages Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, initially in the name of M/s. Pelican Beverages Pvt. Ltd., which was then changed to DCM Remy (P) Limited in which majority shares were held by M/s. Highland Distilleries Co. PLC, U.K. and M/s Remy Cointrau S.A., France, is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of Indian made foreign liquor. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 7.8.2007 passed by the Principal Secretary (Excise), Government of U.P., Lucknow and for writ of prohibition restraining the respondents to proceed in any manner pursuant to the order dated 7.8.2007. 2. Heard Shri Bharatji Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Nikhil Agrawal for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondents. 3. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that DCM Remy Private Limited entered into a memorandum of association with DCM Shriram, Daurala Sugar Works for assignment of the facility to manufacture of Indian made Foreign Liquor in the distillery with capacity of 5000 KL, and for the purposes of bottling their IMFL at Daurala for their own manufactured Indian Made Foreign Liquor from the spirit brought by them. DCM Shriram Daurala Sugar Works holds a licence in Form FL-3 under U.P. Bottling of Foreign Liquor Rules, 1969. 4. DCM Remy Pvt. Ltd. sought permission from the U.P. Excise Commissioner for assignment of a part of bottling privilege of DCM Shriram Daurala Sugar Works in accordance with the provisions of Section 28 of the U.P. Excise Act. The permission was granted in Form FL-3A under the U.P. Bottling of Foreign Liquor Rules, 1969. One of the condition namely condition No. 2 of the Licence FL-3A provided : “2. Licensee shall obtain spirit manufactured in/imported into India for bottling as and when required in bulk only from the distiller, brewer or vintner as the case may be which has let or assigned its bottling privilege, with or without payment of duty at the prevalent rates.” 5. One of the conditions in the letter of permission written by DCM Shriram Ltd. to the U.P. Excise Commissioner was also that the petitioner company proposes to bring its own spirit to the manufacture and bottling of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. One of the conditions in the letter of permission written by DCM Shriram Ltd. to the U.P. Excise Commissioner was also that the petitioner company proposes to bring its own spirit to the manufacture and bottling of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. Subsequently permissions were sought from U.P. Excise Commissioner for import of different quantities of grain neutral spirit (GNS) as well as concentrated alcohol beverages (CAB) from outside the State of U.P. for manufacture and bottling. The permissions were duly granted by the U.P. Excise Commissioner with the imposition of condition that the petitioner will be liable to pay a separate import fee of Rs. 2/- per AL on the entire spirit so imported from outside the State of U.P. It is stated that in each and every instance of import and procurement of GNS and CAB upto the year 2006 permissions were obtained and before importing each consignments permits were issued and that on demand import fee at the rate of Rs. 2/- per AL was paid. The conditions in the special permission given by the Excise Commissioner provided : “1. Before the import of Spirit, Seagram should deposit by way of import fee/ levy, an amount @ Rs. 2/- per AL. 2. Separate account shall be kept of the imported spirit. 3. Imported spirit shall be included in the total capacity of the unit, i.e., 5000 KL. 4. This spirit shall have strength of 94.8% v/v.” 6. In para 24 of the writ petition it is stated that whenever the petitioner had purchased alcohol from within the State of U.P., the purchase tax at the rate of Rs. 0.80 per bulk litre was paid under the U.P. Sales of Motor Spirit, Diesel Oil and Alcohol Taxation Act, 1939 (the Act of 1939) to the State Government. This averment has not been denied in para 12 of the counter affidavit of Shri Bhanu Prakash Yadav, Asstt. Excise Commissioner, Daurala Distillery, Meerut. 7. It is stated that M/s. Daurala Sugar Works Distillery only produces molasses based spirit, whereas the petitioner required regular supply of grain spirit from its beverages for manufacture and bottling of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. 8. The Joint Excise Commissioner, U.P. wrote a letter on 20.9.2006 to the petitioner to obtain spirit from Daurala Distillery as per condition No. 2 in Form FL-3A. 8. The Joint Excise Commissioner, U.P. wrote a letter on 20.9.2006 to the petitioner to obtain spirit from Daurala Distillery as per condition No. 2 in Form FL-3A. The Excise Commissioner U.P. after hearing the petitioner passed an order on 11.10.2006 forfeiting the security amount of Rs.1 lac by way of penalty for violating condition No. 2 of FL-3A licence. 9. The Excise Commissioner, U.P. appreciated that each and every import by the petitioner was in pursuance of specific permit and approval obtained by the petitioner from the excise authorities. He also appreciated that DCM Shriram Industries did not have any infrastructure to manufacture or store GNS and that it was important for the petitioner to receive the same directly to avoid contamination in the storage of the petitioner. The Excise Commissioner, U.P. passed an order dated 11.10.2006 holding that the permission to import grain based spirit is not acceptable. The waiver of condition No. 2 in FL-3A licence was not worthy of acceptance. The petitioner should have imported spirit through FL-3 licence holder, and that by not doing so the State Government has lost the revenue at Rs.0.80 per bulk litre on first purchase under Section 3 (1)(a) of the U.P. Motor Spirit, Diesel Oil & Alcohol Taxation Act, 1939 as amended by Notification dated 23.5.2005 (hereinafter called as the Act of 1939). 10. The Excise Commissioner further held that as a licensee the petitioner was required to adhere to the condition of licence. The State Government has a right to make laws for alcohol having strength of more than 42.8%. The sale of liquor by procuring grain based alcohol from other States is in violation of condition No. 2 of FL-3A licence. The alcohol should have been received from the FL-3 licence holder distillery. The petitioner’s licence is liable to be cancelled for these violations under Section 34 (1)(b) of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 but this procedural irregularity due to incorrect analysis of the conditions of FL-3A licence does not show any malafides, and thus cancellation of licence would not be justified. The unit, however, has not paid the involved purchase tax. The tax, however, cannot be imposed retrospectively as that would burden the petitioner and would be against the principles of natural justice. The Commissioner opined that the purchase tax cannot be imposed retrospectively. The unit, however, has not paid the involved purchase tax. The tax, however, cannot be imposed retrospectively as that would burden the petitioner and would be against the principles of natural justice. The Commissioner opined that the purchase tax cannot be imposed retrospectively. It is not practicable to realize the tax from the back date but if the liability is fixed, the FL-3A licensee will be liable to pay the amount. As a measure of punishment the Excise Commissioner forfeited the security of Rs. 1 lac deposited by SMPL and directed the Asstt. Excise Commissioner, Daurala Distillery to obtain fresh deposit of security and to allow the bottling to continue. In the end the Excise Commissioner accepted the request of FL-3A licensee (SMPL) and in the light of condition No. 2 FL-3A licence SMPL was directed to purchase alcohol in accordance with the rules from M/s DCM Shriram Industries Ltd., Daurala, Sugar Works Distillery Daurala, Distt. Meerut. 11. The petitioner deposited Rs. 1 lac. It is stated by Shri Bharat Ji Agrawal, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that since by this order dated 11.10.2006 passed by the Excise Commissioner, U.P., the petitioner was required to procure GNS only the DSW and that its licence in Form FL-3A was not adversely affected in any manner, the petitioner did not challenge the order. There was no financial burden upon the petitioner by the operative part of the order in terms of any demand of purchase tax from 1994-2006. The petitioner, however, did not admit the liability or violation of condition No. 2 of the licence. 12. The petitioner received a notice dated 7.6.2006 from the Principal Secretary, Department of Excise, Government of U.P. under Section 11 (2) of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 by which the State Government had taken suo moto cognizance in respect of the order dated 11.10.2006 passed by respondent No. 2. The petitioner sought reasons for seeking action and addressed a letter dated 11.6.2007 to the State Government. The representatives of the petitioner appeared before the Principal Secretary, Excise, U.P. on 14.6.2007. They were informed that scope of the notice is the violation of condition No. 2 of FL-3A licence, and the payment of purchase tax while granting permission for direct purchase of Grain Neutral Spirits by the petitioner. The revision was heard on 5.7.2007. The petitioner filed its written submissions confined to the issues. 13. They were informed that scope of the notice is the violation of condition No. 2 of FL-3A licence, and the payment of purchase tax while granting permission for direct purchase of Grain Neutral Spirits by the petitioner. The revision was heard on 5.7.2007. The petitioner filed its written submissions confined to the issues. 13. By the impugned order dated 7.8.2007 the Principal Secretary, Excise, Government of U.P. has set aside the order dated 11.10.2006 passed by the Excise Commissioner and has remanded the matter back to the Excise Commissioner, U.P. to reconsider it afresh. The State Government found that revision against the order dated 11.10.2006 was maintainable by taking suo moto cognizance under Section 11 (2) of the U.P. Excise Act. The Commissioner, Excise, U.P. has not passed the order dated 11th October, 2006 under the U.P. Motor Spirit Diesel Oil and Alcohols Sale Rules, 1977 but under the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 on the ground that U.P. Bottling of Foreign Liquor Rules, 1969 required in condition No. 2 to import alcohol through FL-3 licensees and since alcohol was not purchased through FL-3 licensees, the State Government has suffered the loss of purchase tax at the rate of Rs. 0.80 per litre. 14. The State Government accepted the contentions that purchase tax on purchase of GNS/CAB from outside the State cannot be recovered, as the inter-State purchases under Entry 54 of List 2 of the 7th Schedule read with Entry 92A of List 1 of the 7th Schedule is subject to legislation under Art. 286 by the Parliament. However, it observed that this argument was not being used in the correct perspective and has been made only to meet its own purpose. Under the conditions of licence the petitioner was required to import GNS/CAB through FL-3 licensees namely M/s Shriram Industries Unit, Daurala. In such a case the State Government was to be paid Rs. 0.80 alongwith the import permit fees of Rs. 2 per litre. The State Government has thus suffered loss of the purchase tax on the import of alcohol. 15. The State Government observed that the petitioner and M/s. DCM Shriram Industries Pvt. Ltd. have not challenged condition No. 2 in FL-3A licence and that after the order dated 11.10.2006 the unit is following condition No. 2 and is importing liquor through FL-3 licence. 15. The State Government observed that the petitioner and M/s. DCM Shriram Industries Pvt. Ltd. have not challenged condition No. 2 in FL-3A licence and that after the order dated 11.10.2006 the unit is following condition No. 2 and is importing liquor through FL-3 licence. The unit has also accepted the forfeiture of security of Rs.1 lac and has thus admitted violation of condition No. 2 of the FL-3 licence. The unit is as such guilty of non-payment of purchase tax on the imported alcohol and is liable to pay the purchase tax. The Excise Commissioner had found that the demand would raise financial burden and would be against the principles of natural justice and thus purchase tax should not be realized with retrospective effect. The Excise Commissioner has not clarified whether the unit had included element of purchase tax in the prices nor any document or other evidence has been given to establish it. The Excise Commissioner has not decided the matter about the liability of payment of purchase tax and has not answered that who will determine the liability. There is no power of relaxation or exemption of such purchase tax in the Act of 1939, and thus the order is against the provisions of law. It was further found that the order dated 11th October, 2006 passed by the Excise Commissioner, U.P. was made on the representation of unit and that Daurala Distillery was not heard in the matter. The State Government has also observed that the fact as to who had given permission for import directly to FL-3A licensee was not considered nor any liability was fixed upon the person, who allowed such imports. The matter was as such remanded to the Excise Commissioner, U.P. to reconsider the issues and to pass a fresh order. 16. The State Government has also observed that the fact as to who had given permission for import directly to FL-3A licensee was not considered nor any liability was fixed upon the person, who allowed such imports. The matter was as such remanded to the Excise Commissioner, U.P. to reconsider the issues and to pass a fresh order. 16. Shri Bharat Ji Agrawal would submit that suo moto revisionary powers by the State Government under Section 11 (2) of the U.P. Excise Act were not attracted in the present case as the Excise Commissioner had acted within the powers vested in him for cancellation/forfeiture of security of the licence and had no jurisdiction to make any observations with regard to liability of purchase tax on the import of alcohol in the State of U.P. There was no violation of Condition No. 2 of FL-3A licence as Condition No. 2 was relaxed by the Excise Department on applications made to the Excise Commissioner to permit import of alcohol in the State and payment of Rs. 2/- per AL as import permit fees and other conditions, which were fulfilled. There was no taxing event in the State of U.P. to attract the levy of purchase tax. Infact there were no purchase of alcohol in the State of U.P. at all. Rule 15-B of the rules framed under the Act of 1939 vests the powers to issue notice and realization of purchase tax in the District Magistrate, if a taxing event in accordance with charging Section 3 of the Act of 1939 had fallen in the State of U.P. He would submit that no notice was issued under the Purchase Tax Act and that condition of licence is no better than rule, which could be relaxed or put to a condition under Section 31 (c) of the U.P. Excise Act. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act permitted amendment of the statutory instrument under Section 2 (42-B) of the Act. The State Government could not have assumed the taxing event under condition 2 of FL-3A licence and directed consideration of imposition of tax on the import of alcohol. 17. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act permitted amendment of the statutory instrument under Section 2 (42-B) of the Act. The State Government could not have assumed the taxing event under condition 2 of FL-3A licence and directed consideration of imposition of tax on the import of alcohol. 17. On the levy of purchase tax Shri Bharat Ji Agrawal would contend that under Section 3 (c) of the Act of 1939 the liability of purchase tax arise only in the event of purchase of spirit from within the State of U.P. and not on inter-State purchases. Firstly the Act of 1939 is a Code in itself in which an appeal would lie to Board of Revenue and secondly the Excise Act and the Act of 1939 are two different Acts. The power under Section 11 (2) of the U.P. Excise Act cannot be exercised in respect of levy of purchase tax. He would also submit that purchase tax on the purchase of spirit from outside the State is violative of Article 286 read with Article 246, List 1, Entry 92- A, the liability of purchase tax would arise in case the purchases were made from within the State of U.P. and not on inter-State transactions. 18. Shri Bharat Ji Agrawal submits that there was no violation of condition No. 2 of FL-3A licence as the condition was relaxed by the Excise Commissioner on the application given by the petitioner and on issuance of subject permits to import alcohol. The assumption that condition No. 2 was violated was subject to punishment by forfeiture of security deposited by the petitioner with condition that in future the import shall be through the Daurala distillery. The petitioner after the order is importing alcohol through Daurala distillery. The observation that the order of the State Government setting aside the order of the Commissioner that the assumption of guilt of violation of condition No. 2 and deposit of Rs. 1 lac after the security of the like amount was forfeited, by itself attracted the payment of purchase tax. Once the legal position on the competence of the State Government to tax inter-State sales and that taxing event did not happen in the State of U.P. was accepted violation of condition No. 2 and the punishment of forfeiture of the security would not by itself attract the payment of purchase tax. 19. Once the legal position on the competence of the State Government to tax inter-State sales and that taxing event did not happen in the State of U.P. was accepted violation of condition No. 2 and the punishment of forfeiture of the security would not by itself attract the payment of purchase tax. 19. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the State Government has ample powers under Section 11 (2) of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 to call for and correct the records and the order of the Excise Commissioner dated 6.10.2006 holding that condition No. 2 of FL-3A licence was not deposited by the petitioner. It was an order passed on the representation made by the petitioner without hearing the Deputy Excise Commissioner, Meerut or the Asstt. Excise Commissioner, Daurala distillery. The reasoning given by the Commissioner, Excise was not found to be correct. He had not answered the question as to who will determine the purchase tax and the reasons as to why it was not practicable to recover the purchase tax from retrospective effect. The State Government found that the order was not legal and that proper reasons have not been recorded for holding that purchase tax under the Act of 1939 should not be recovered from the petitioner. He submits that condition No. 2 of FL-3A licence was obtained voluntarily by the petitioner under which the alcohol was to be obtained only from FL-3 licensee. The petitioner was not entitled to obtain alcohol from person other than FL-3 licensees, who had let its bottling privilege to the petitioner. The purchase of alcohol directly by the petitioner distilleries outside the State not only resulted in violation of condition No. 2 of the licence but also caused loss of purchase tax to the State Government. 20. Learned Standing Counsel submits that manufacture and sale of liquor is exclusive privilege of the State. The conditions of the licence are binding on a licensee, and he cannot turn around and take a contrary stand. The judgment in Vaidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd., JT 2005 (1) SC 314 has approved the law laid down in Bihar distillery case. The privilege for bottling was coupled with a condition that the alcohol will be obtained only through FL-3 licensee. The State Government, therefore, acted within its authority to direct the Excise Commissioner, U.P. to decide the matter afresh. 21. The privilege for bottling was coupled with a condition that the alcohol will be obtained only through FL-3 licensee. The State Government, therefore, acted within its authority to direct the Excise Commissioner, U.P. to decide the matter afresh. 21. The Department of Industrial Development, Ministry of Industry, Government of India by its letter dated 31.12.1991 approved the application of the petitioner for estabilisation of non-molasses based spirit manufacturing/blending facility of 5000 kl per annum through its wholly owned subsidiary. The approval was to attract foreign equity and was subject to the condition given in the approval letter. The petitioner was to function as wholly owned subsidiary of the foreign company. The approval letter dated 31.12.1991 was given with this condition, in the name of the new company. The petitioner did not have distillation and bottling facility and thus an arrangement was entered into an arrangement with Daurala Sugar Works for bottling facility. The Excise Commissioner U.P. granted FL-3A licence to the petitioner in the locality of M/s DCM Shriram Industries Ltd., Distillery Daurala, Distt. Meerut on obtaining on lease bottling privilege of Daurala distillery. The licensee was required to obtain spirit manufactured in/ imported into India, for bottling as and when required in bulk only from the distiller, brewer or vintner, which has let or assigned its bottling privileges with or without payment of duty at the prevalent rates. The licensee fixed the quantity of bottling to 5000 KL per annum and was entitled to put his own brand name or international brand name and to colour, blend, flavour and reduce with permission of the Excise Commissioner and previous sanction of the State Government and to obtain a licence in Form BWFL2 for the wholesale vend of foreign liquor so bottled in a separate premises and to deposit bottling fees at such rates and in such manner as prescribed under the rules. 22. The petitioner requested for special permission to import NGS from outside the State of U.P. and requested for grant of permission to import alcohol neutral grain spirit to the bottling unit at Daurala. The permission was allowed by the Deputy Excise Commissioner for the Excise Commissioner from time to time with condition of payment of Rs. 2/- per AL as import permit fees, maintain a separate account. The permission was allowed by the Deputy Excise Commissioner for the Excise Commissioner from time to time with condition of payment of Rs. 2/- per AL as import permit fees, maintain a separate account. The capacity of 5000 KL was to be included for the purposes of import of spirit, which was not put beyond 94.8% v/v. For every consignment passes were issued by the District Excise Officer after the import fees was collected and receipt was issued. 23. The special permissions were allowed and passes were issued from 1994 to 2006. The Deputy Commissioner, Excise, Meerut Region, Meerut reported that the imports directly by the petitioner are in violation of condition No. 2 of FL-3A licence giving rise to the initiation of the proceedings by the show-cause notice. The Excise Commissioner heard the petitioner and found that though the condition No. 2 of FL-3A licence is clearly indicated in the licence, the petitioner was issued special permission for import and that it has imported the entire alcohol from the State of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Punjab. The Commissioner agreed with his department that the condition was binding upon the petitioner and that licence could be cancelled on such breach of condition under Section 34 (1)(b) of the Act. The Commissioner, however, gave benefit of doubt to the petitioner and found that the irregularity was result of incorrect interpretation of the condition in the licence and that there was no malafide intention to violate the condition. He did not found it appropriate to cancel the licence and closed the proceedings by forfeiting the security of Rs. 1 lac as punishment for violation of the condition. The observation that the purchase tax has not been paid and was not included in the sale price and further that realization of purchase tax would cause financial hardships, which will be against the principle of natural justice and it is not practicable to realize purchase tax with retrospective effect was by way of an answer to the objections taken by the Deputy Excise Commissioner that the direct import is not only violative of condition No. 2 but has also caused loss to the revenue by way of purchase tax. 24. 24. The cancellation of the licence or forfeiture of the security as the case may be, and the realization of purchase tax on the taxing event occurring under Section 3 of the Act of 1939 are entirely different issues. The Deputy Excise Commissioner making the report assumed that the purchase of alcohol from outside the State was made to avoid the liability of purchase tax. It neither noticed nor considered that condition No. 2 in FL-3A licence was relaxed and the petitioner was allowed purchases directly from distilleries outside State of U.P. The findings recorded by the Excise Commissioner regarding violation of condition No. 2 FL-3A licence were by way of interpretation of the condition and that there was no malafide intention in doing so, as all the imports were made through the permission granted by his office and that moments were made under the valid passes. These special permissions and entry passes were not cancelled or withdrawn. The whole issue as such could not be subject to administrative review, in the revisionary powers of the State Government under Section 11 (2) of the Excise Act, 1910. Further the assumption that the purchases were made to avoid the liability of purchase tax was wholly unreasonable. The State Government assumed that if the purchases were made by Daurala distillery for consumption in manufacture by the petitioner, the purchases would have attracted purchase tax as these would have been the first purchases of alcohol in the State. 25. The Act of 1939 was enacted to provide levy of tax on sales purchase of motor spirit, diesel oil and alcohol. The motor spirit, diesel oil, kerosene oil are separately defined under the Act. In Section 2 (aaaa) ‘alcohol’ means ethyl alcohol not being alcoholic liquor for human consumption, and includes (rectified spirit, denatured spirit and absolute alcohol). Section 3 (c) provides that there shall be levied at the point of first purchase of alcohol in the State a tax at the rate of (eighty paise per litre for the first million litres and at the rate of forty paise per litre for the remainder payable by the purchaser, and such tax shall be collected and paid in the prescribed manner to the State Government. The Act provides for registration of the dealers in Section 5; prohibition of sale without registration certificate in Section 6; suspension and cancellation of registration certificate in Section 8; delegation of powers and duties in Section 9; search and seizure in Section 10; power of investigation in Section 10-B, which includes investigation by a nominated Excise Officer; powers of the Court to order forfeiture in Section 11; offences and penalties in Section 12; compounding in cognizance of offence under Sections 13 and 14 by the Excise Officers empowered under Section 14-A; appeals and revisions in Section 16; and power to make rules including power to recall the levy and recovery of tax under Section 17. Rule 7 made under the Act for levy and recovery in which powers have been given to the District Magistrate of the concerned district. 26. The assumption that if purchases were made through FL-3 licensee, the taxing event of the first purchase in the State of U.P. between FL-3 licensee and FL-3A licence would have fallen in the State of U.P. is a misinterpretation of Clause 2 of FL-3A licence, which provides that licensee (FL-3A licensee) shall obtain spirit manufactured in importing into India for bottling as and when required in bulk only from the distiller, brewer or vintner as the case may be, which has let or assigned its bottling beverages with or without payment of duty at the prevalent rates. Daurala distillery produces alcohol from molasses. The petitioner neither purchased nor could use the spirit for blending. The reasoning that condition No. 2 of the licence could only be complied with if such purchases were made from outside the State or within the State by the Daurala distillery alone, is entirely fallacious. Even if these purchases were made through Daurala distillery holding FL-3A licence, there could be no event for first purchase of such alcohol within the State of U.P. The imposition of purchase tax on such arrangement would have required such assumption before the purchase tax could be realized. In any case, such an event attracting purchase tax did not happen as the purchases were made by FL-3A licence under special permits given by the Excise Commissioner and thus there was no evasion and consequent loss of purchase tax to the State Government. 27. In any case, such an event attracting purchase tax did not happen as the purchases were made by FL-3A licence under special permits given by the Excise Commissioner and thus there was no evasion and consequent loss of purchase tax to the State Government. 27. The orders passed by the Excise Commissioner from 1994 till 2006, giving permissions to import neutral grain spirit from the named distillery in the permits on payment of Rs. 2/- as import permit fees, and under the import passes issued by the District Excise Commissioner, were not called in question, nor have been found to be illegal and inoperative as violative of condition No. 2 of FL-3A licence. The import permits granted by the same authority, which had issued FL-3A licence modified condition No. 2 of FL-3A licence on such purchases. It is significant to notice that in condition No. 2 there is no reference of purchasing spirit from the distiller assigning its bottling beverages to the licensees. The words used are that licensee shall obtain spirit manufactured in/imported into India for bottling, and when required in bulk only from the distiller assigning its bottling beverages. The condition as such could have been interpreted without violating the contents, that the licensee was required to obtain spirit manufactured in/imported into India for bottling from the distiller, which had assigned its bottling beverages only in a case, where the distiller was manufacturing or was engaged in the business of such purchases for the spirits to be bottled by the licensee. The condition No. 2 does not provide that even if the distiller assigning the bottling beverages was not manufacturing the spirit, it shall purchase or arrange or that the licensee will be obliged to purchase such spirit only from the distiller assigning its bottling beverages to the licensee. The petitioner did not take liberties to interpret condition No. 2 in its favour. It rather requested the Excise Commissioner to allow permission to import neutral spirit from outside the State. The permission was granted without any objections. The Excise Commissioner did not commit any error in observing that interpretation given by the petitioner to condition No. 2 of FL-3A licence was not with any malafide intentions, or to avoid the payment of purchase tax under the Act of 1939. The permission was granted without any objections. The Excise Commissioner did not commit any error in observing that interpretation given by the petitioner to condition No. 2 of FL-3A licence was not with any malafide intentions, or to avoid the payment of purchase tax under the Act of 1939. With these findings the Excise Commissioner infact exceeded in its jurisdiction in forfeiting the security, but since the order was not challenged by the petitioner and has become final, the Court would not like to examine its validity after a period of two years and specially when the condition has been accepted in a manner in which it was interpreted by the petitioner. 28. The revisionary powers are reserved with the highest authorities in the executive and are given by the legislation to correct the errors of jurisdiction. The object of revisionary power is to put a check and control over the exercise of statutory authorities. The revision of an executive order by such an authority is an act to examine any action, in order to remove any defect or grant relief against the irregular or improper exercise or non-exercise of jurisdiction by such authority. These powers are not to be used as appellate powers for expressing a different opinion. 29. In the present case the Secretary, Excise of the State Government fell into patent error, laced with patent official bias to set aside the order of the Excise Commissioner. Bias is of three kinds; peculiar, personal and official. P. Ramanatha Ayer in his Law Lexicon 2nd Edition Reprint 2007, defines official bias as an abnormal desire to uphold a particular departmental policy, which would prevent an impartial adjudication of the dispute. A desire to intrude into the authority of another executive power under a different statute purportedly to avoid evasion of State revenue would clearly amount to official bias, vitiating such assumed exercise of the powers. 30. The State Government committed manifest error in law in taking suo moto action and issuing show-cause notice to the petitioner for revising the order of the Excise Commissioner, which did not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or excess of authority. The Excise Commissioner is not an authority under the Act of 1939 to issue notices and for realization of purchase tax. The Excise Commissioner is not an authority under the Act of 1939 to issue notices and for realization of purchase tax. For the same reason the Secretary, Excise, Government of U.P. also travelled a little too far in interpreting condition No. 2 of FL-3A licence and in holding that if condition No. 2 was complied with, the State Government would not have lost its revenue. The reasoning was provided as if the entire object of Condition No. 2 of FL-3A licence was to collect purchase tax on the purchase of alcohol from outside State of U.P. The petitioner or Daurala distillery could well have purchased the alcohol from within the State and in such case there could be no assumption of evasion of liability of purchase tax. The condition of obtaining spirit by the licensee from the distiller, brewer or vintner, which has let or assigned its bottling privilege could be achieved by other methods. The assumption in exercising revisionary powers on the ground that the bottling privilege could only be utilised by purchasing spirit from the distiller, brewer or vintner and consequent collection of purchase tax could not be a ground to exercise revisionary powers. The word ‘obtain’ is defined in the Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyer, 2nd Edition Reprint 2007; “to get hold, to gain possession of, to acquire, to maintain and hold upon, to keep, to purchase, to secure. The context often govern the meaning to be given to the term. Thus in respect of a patent “obtain” generally means obtaining from the ground or govern; but by context it may mean “the becoming process, either by original grant, by assignment or by any other title”. Further the licensee could obtain such spirit “with or without payment of duty at the prevalent rates. The assumption that such spirit could only be obtained by purchase on which purchase tax was payable was a far fetched, reason to exercise powers of revision by the State Government under Section 11 (2) of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 to review the order of the Excise Commissioner and to direct him to decide the matter afresh. 31. For the aforesaid reasons the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 7.8.2007 passed by the Principal Secretary, Excise, Government of U.P. in Revision No. 49 of 2007 in the matter of FL-3A licence of the petitioner is set aside. 31. For the aforesaid reasons the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 7.8.2007 passed by the Principal Secretary, Excise, Government of U.P. in Revision No. 49 of 2007 in the matter of FL-3A licence of the petitioner is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ————