HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Union of India and Another v. M/s Om Prakash S.S. and Company and Another
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3797 of 2001
[2001] 1 SCR 1113-1114 · Printed report date — 19 February 2000 (chronology disputed; actual decision date unresolved)
Income-tax Act 1961: section 206C and Explanation to subsection (11), as discussed in the order
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
2-judge bench · B.N. Kirpal J. · Ruma Pal J.
01 · Facts of the case
The Union sought special leave against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order in CWP 1450/2000. The issue was whether payment for government permission to conduct liquor trade made the licensee a buyer of goods under section 206C.
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court distinguished permission to conduct a trade from acquisition of specific goods. A licence fee did not itself entitle the licensee to lift goods; procurement required a separate order on a manufacturer or supplier. Under the provision discussed, payment had to secure specific goods or a right to receive them. High Court observations inconsistent with this explanation might not be strictly correct.
03 · Judicial decision
The SLP was dismissed. Government permission to conduct liquor trade did not alone attract section 206C. The order distinguishes that permission from a separate purchase of goods.
Source: Primary report: SCR 1114 A-D and concluding operative sentence; PDF 2
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Licensee/respondents on the licence-fee issue; the Union's SLP was dismissed. This is not a blanket exemption from TCS for liquor purchases or every payment connected with liquor trade.
Source: Primary report: SCR 1114 B-D and operative sentence; PDF 2
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
Examine licence conditions, purchase orders, invoices and the rights created by each payment. Distinguish vending permission from procurement consideration and apply the statutory text for the relevant year. Keep the unresolved source-date qualification with any citation.
Source: Primary report: Editorial analysis anchored in SCR 1113-1114; not an additional holding
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete two-page report, SCR 1113-1114, fully read and visually checked. The complete official JUDIS rendition was also read; the report-date conflict remains unresolved.
- Do not treat the printed date as a verified actual decision date. The public date filters and machine-readable decision-date fields intentionally exclude it from confirmed dated results.
- The report supplies no assessment year, licence amount or demand computation. None has been inferred.
Statutory scope
This brief order interprets section 206C and the Explanation discussed in that text. It does not establish an exemption from every TCS obligation arising in liquor trade. Verify the text applicable to the relevant year and subsequent amendments before current reliance.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-26. Only the identified later reference in 2024 INSC 484, paragraph 15.1 and footnote 8, was checked. It cites the earlier licence-versus-goods distinction and supplies no corrected date. This is not comprehensive later-treatment or current-law clearance.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Identified source links
AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
AI-assisted research checked against the complete identified primary report. Independent human approval is not represented. Documentary source exceptions are expressly disclosed.
General legal and tax research only; not legal or tax advice. Verify the complete original, applicable statutory version and subsequent treatment before reliance. The AKHB REVIEW POINT is editorial analysis, not an additional holding of the Court.