Gurugram accounts for 27% of Hry excise revenue, state logs highest haul

Officials attributed the excise windfall to the successful auction of all 1,194 excise zones and issuance of 2,388 retail liquor shop licenses across the state

The district of Gurugram has emerged as Haryana’s top contributor to excise revenue this fiscal year, clocking ₹3,875 crore, nearly 27% of the state’s total collections, as the excise and taxation department posted its highest-ever haul of ₹14,342 crore. The district outpaced larger peers like Faridabad ( ₹1,696 crore), Sonipat ( ₹1,066 crore), Rewari ( ₹654 crore), and Hisar ( ₹615 crore), driven by a surge in liquor retail auctions under the state’s revamped excise policy.

Of this, ₹39,153 crore came from State GST, and ₹12,701 crore from excise duty. Haryana’s total revenue receipts for 2024–25 are estimated at ₹116,639 crore, marking a 10% rise over the previous year. (HT Archive)

The spike in excise income, up 13.25% from last year, helped the department exceed its overall revenue target of ₹61,950 crore, with total receipts touching ₹63,371 crore (102.3% of the target), official data revealed. Of this, ₹39,153 crore came from State GST, and ₹12,701 crore from excise duty. Haryana’s total revenue receipts for 2024–25 are estimated at ₹116,639 crore, marking a 10% rise over the previous year.

Officials attributed the excise windfall to the successful auction of all 1,194 excise zones and issuance of 2,388 retail liquor shop licenses across the state. “We allotted two liquor vends per zone, and the auction was concluded ahead of schedule and more transparently than before,” said excise and taxation commissioner Vinay Pratap Singh, crediting strict enforcement and the state’s zero-tolerance approach under chief minister Nayab Singh Saini’s directives.

Rural districts too posted strong year-on-year gains—Bhiwani (23.5%), Fatehabad (21%), Hisar (21%), Kurukshetra (20.5%), and Panipat (18%)—indicating a broad-based growth in consumption and licensing.

However, the government’s celebration of its fiscal success has been tempered by allegations of procedural violations in high-revenue districts like Gurugram. Supreme Court advocate and national president of Adhikaar (The Rights Path), Rajeev Yadav, alleged that multiple premium excise zones were awarded at prices far below their reserve value through manipulated rebids.

“Liquor zones were allotted well below reserve prices by conducting multiple rebids, with the reserve slashed by 3% each time—violating para 2.16 of the excise policy,” Yadav said, citing the Sector 31 and 40 zones in Gurugram, where the original reserve price of ₹78.81 crore was reduced to ₹50.83 crore—a 35.5% drop. Similar discrepancies were reported in the upscale Galleria zone, allotted for ₹19.63 crore against a reserve price of ₹28.25 crore (down 30.5%).

Yadav also alleged that several zones saw orchestrated “zero bids” to justify successive reserve price cuts. “Zero bids in premium locations don’t happen without coordination. The silence of CID and vigilance agencies is alarming,” he said, further questioning how the Galleria zone’s auction results were declared even before the scheduled bid opening time on July 23.

Pointing to a larger discrepancy, he added that while Gurugram West and East together had a combined reserve price of ₹4,007 crore, the final collection stood at ₹3,875 crore—below the threshold. “This undermines the very purpose of an auction, where bids should exceed the reserve,” Yadav said.

Amit Bhatia, deputy excise and taxation officer (East), defended the process, stating that price reductions followed due process. “If there are no bidders, we are allowed to lower the reserve price as per policy. Even at reduced rates, if bids don’t come in, we go lower until the zone is picked up,” he said.

A liquor vendor owner in Gurugram, who requested anonymity, described the lower allotment rates as a double-edged sword. “It made certain zones affordable, but the margins are tight—rent, security, and staffing costs in these markets are still high. We’re not making a killing,” he said. On allegations of collusion, he added, “The policy allows rebidding. If there were irregularities, they should be probed. But don’t paint all contractors with the same brush.”