Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Tax & Customs LawSupreme Court of India

Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Not available · 2024 INSC 327Decided 19 Apr 2024
Not available
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Justice Aravind Kumar

Background

The appellant, a liquor sub-licensee, exceeded the permissible "wastage" limits for foreign liquor during the 2009-10 license year. At that time, the applicable penalty rule allowed up to four times the duty payable. In 2011, before any demand notice was issued, the rule was amended (substituted) to reduce the penalty to a maximum of one times the duty. The excise authorities nonetheless demanded, and the High Court's Division Bench upheld, the higher (old) penalty on the reasoning that the rule in force during the license year should govern.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that when a rule is "substituted" (as opposed to merely repealed), the old rule ceases to exist and the new rule takes over from the date of substitution, unless the statute specifically preserves the old rule for past liabilities. Since the demand notice was issued only in November 2011, after the amendment, and the Madhya Pradesh General Clauses Act's rule-saving provision was found inapplicable in this regulatory context (given the amendment's purpose of proportionate deterrence), the Court held the substituted, lower penalty applied. It also rejected the argument that applying the reduced penalty was impermissible "retrospective" application, since applying a more lenient rule to a pending proceeding is not the same as penalizing someone more harshly after the fact.

Lesson Learnt

When a penalty rule is amended to reduce punishment before any demand or proceeding is actually initiated against a person, the more lenient, current rule generally applies, not the harsher rule that existed when the violation occurred.

Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware