GUWAHATI: The Assam Excise Department has issued a sweeping directive that effectively transforms liquor licence holders into revenue-bound entities, introducing a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) that fixes Minimum Guaranteed Revenue (MGR) targets for wholesale warehouses, IMFL and country spirit retailers, and company-operated wholesale units across the state.
ALSO READ: Sixteen Assam Athletes Selected to Represent India at 2026 World Taekwondo Championships in South Korea
The order, circulated by the Commissioner of Excise to all District Commissioners, leaves little room for ambiguity: every licence holder will now be expected to deliver a pre-determined revenue figure, with district authorities responsible for ensuring compliance.
The official communication, issued from the Office of the Commissioner of Excise, directs all District Commissioners to implement the SOP "for implementation of the Minimum Guaranteed Revenue (MGR) system under Assam Excise Rules, 2026" and take "necessary action." Attached to the communication are detailed lists assigning MGR figures to hundreds of wholesale and retail licensees across Assam.
While the government may argue that the move is intended to streamline excise administration and ensure predictable revenue, the policy raises uncomfortable questions about whether the state's revenue priorities are beginning to overshadow public health concerns and responsible alcohol regulation.
"This is no longer merely licensing liquor; it is institutionalising revenue expectations," said a senior excise observer familiar with the department's functioning. "When a government begins fixing guaranteed earnings from alcohol, it inevitably creates pressure all the way down the administrative chain."
The SOP makes its intent abundantly clear.
Its stated objective is to provide guidelines for implementation of the MGR system introduced under the amended Assam Excise Rules, 2026. The framework covers wholesale licences for IMFL, beer and country spirit as well as retail licences, prescribing detailed methods to calculate annual revenue obligations based largely on previous years' collections.
For wholesalers, the MGR is derived from average revenue deposited during the previous financial year, with separate provisions for new warehouses. Existing warehouses performing above the state average will have their MGR fixed at the actual revenue deposited during the previous year, while those below average will be assigned a target equivalent to 50 per cent of the average revenue.
Retail outlets are subjected to an equally elaborate formula.
District Excise Commissioners have been instructed to calculate average retail revenue after adjusting for newly opened shops. Existing retail licence holders who performed above average during 2025-26 are expected to maintain those levels, while even underperforming outlets are not spared, being assigned a revenue benchmark calculated under the formula prescribed in the SOP.
Industry sources say this fundamentally alters the relationship between the government and liquor vendors.
"Earlier, revenue depended on business performance and consumer demand. Now the government is effectively telling traders what they are expected to contribute irrespective of market conditions," said a Guwahati-based wholesale licence holder, requesting anonymity.
"The department says these are only minimum targets, but everyone understands how such targets work inside the administrative system."
The SOP also establishes a monthly monitoring mechanism.
Wholesale operators are required to generate import or transport permits while maintaining monthly revenue deposits, whereas retail licence holders are expected to deposit revenue every month while generating transport passes. The framework creates continuous monitoring of collections rather than merely annual assessment.
Critics argue that such a structure could unintentionally incentivise increased liquor sales.
"If revenue becomes the principal performance indicator, then every stakeholder—from licence holders to local administration—will feel compelled to maximise collections," said a former senior government official familiar with excise administration.
"It sends an awkward public policy signal. Governments simultaneously speak about reducing alcohol abuse while institutionalising guaranteed revenue from alcohol."
The department has included provisions for force majeure, allowing relief in extraordinary circumstances such as floods, cyclones, earthquakes, landslides, epidemics, court orders, government-mandated closures, movement restrictions and large-scale civil disturbances. Even death of a licensee has been recognised as a force majeure event.
However, obtaining relief is far from automatic.
Licensees must notify the department within 72 hours, submit documentary evidence and wait for assessment by district authorities before the Excise Commissioner decides whether any reduction, deferment or waiver will be granted. Relief measures may include revised payment schedules, waiver of penalties or proportionate reduction in MGR depending on circumstances.
Equally revealing is what the SOP explicitly refuses to recognise as grounds for relief.
Poor sales, market competition, shortage of working capital, internal business disputes and licence holder negligence have all been excluded from the definition of force majeure.
"This means business risk remains entirely with the licence holder while revenue certainty remains with the government," observed an excise law expert.
"The state has insulated its revenue expectations but has not insulated businesses from commercial realities."
Perhaps the most striking feature of the order lies not in the policy itself but in the annexures that follow.
Running into several pages, the department has assigned precise MGR figures to individual wholesale warehouses, company-operated warehouses and retail liquor establishments across districts. Some warehouse targets extend into tens of crores of rupees, while hundreds of retail establishments have been allocated individual revenue benchmarks reaching several lakhs or crores depending on their historical performance.
The sheer scale of the exercise demonstrates that this is not a pilot initiative but a state-wide revenue architecture.
Administrative officers have effectively been handed district-wise revenue blueprints, leaving little discretion once implementation begins.
"This is target-based governance in its purest form," remarked an economist tracking state finances.
"The question that deserves public debate is whether governments should become increasingly dependent on projected alcohol revenue when they are simultaneously expected to promote public health."
The timing of the move is also significant.
Several states have witnessed increasing dependence on excise receipts as one of the most reliable sources of non-tax revenue. Assam now appears to be moving towards a more formalised revenue assurance model, where future collections are estimated, fixed and monitored through administrative procedures rather than left entirely to market performance.
Government officials may defend the policy by arguing that it merely rationalises collections and removes uncertainty from revenue planning.
Yet critics maintain that once guaranteed targets become institutionalised, the pressure to achieve them may eventually filter through every level of the excise administration.
"Revenue targets have a way of acquiring lives of their own," said another former bureaucrat.
"When collections begin lagging, questions will inevitably be asked. Those questions travel from the Secretariat to district offices, from district offices to enforcement staff, and eventually to licence holders."
The larger policy dilemma therefore remains unresolved.
Should excise administration primarily regulate alcohol in the public interest, or should it function as a mechanism to guarantee predictable government earnings?
With the issuance of the new MGR SOP, Assam appears to have answered that question—at least administratively.