Regulatory fee on industrial alcohol manufacture upheld where supervision cost and levy showed a broad nexus.

Supervisory charges imposed on a manufacturer of industrial alcohol under section 58(A) of the Bombay Prohibition Act were upheld as a valid regulatory levy. The charge was treated as connected to the State's power to supervise manufacture and prevent diversion of industrial alcohol for potable use. A broad co-relationship between the amount recovered and the cost of the supervisory establishment was sufficient, and the levy was not invalid merely because collections were credited to the consolidated fund or varied with the scale of business. The constitutional challenge therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the supervisory charges levied under section 58(A) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 on a manufacturer of industrial alcohol were valid as a regulatory levy or fee, and whether the absence of a separate fund or strict uniformity negatived the levy.

Analysis: The levy was upheld as a statutory charge connected with supervision of manufacture and prevention of diversion of industrial alcohol for potable use. The Court relied on the earlier decision sustaining the same provision and accepted that the State is competent to regulate the use of alcohol and to recover the cost of supervision imposed for that purpose. It further held that the levy could be supported as a fee or regulatory charge where there is a broad co-relationship between the amount recovered and the cost of the supervisory establishment. The fact that the collections were credited to the consolidated fund, or that the amount varied with the nature and extent of the business, did not by itself destroy the character of the levy.

Conclusion: The levy under section 58(A) was valid and the challenge to its constitutional validity failed.

Final Conclusion: The supervisory charges were sustained as a lawful regulatory exaction associated with supervision of industrial alcohol manufacture, and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A levy imposed to meet the cost of supervision over a licensed alcohol-related activity is valid as a regulatory fee where there is a broad nexus between the impost and the services rendered, and its character is not destroyed merely because the collections are credited to the consolidated fund.

---