TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds demand for revised supervision charges, rejects petitioner's arguments. Rule discharged in favor of respondents.</h1> The court upheld the demand for payment of additional supervision charges based on revised rates for services provided, rejecting the petitioner's ... Supervision charges Issues:1. Retrospective imposition of supervision charges under Section 58A of the Bombay Prohibition Act.2. Reasonableness of demanding additional charges for supervision services.Analysis:Issue 1: Retrospective imposition of supervision charges under Section 58AThe petitioner challenged the demand for payment of supervision charges with retrospective effect, arguing that Section 58A does not empower the authorities to impose fees retrospectively. The court referred to a previous judgment where it was held that the charges under Section 58A are for services rendered and not a tax. The court upheld that the liability to pay charges was not imposed retrospectively, but only the rates were revised retrospectively due to the revision of pay scales of the staff. The court rejected the contention that the demand was unreasonable, as it was based on the revised rates for services provided.Issue 2: Reasonableness of demanding additional chargesThe petitioner contended that demanding additional charges for the period from 1974 to 1982 was unreasonable. The court compared this case to a Supreme Court decision regarding recovery of duty, emphasizing that the reasonableness of a demand made after a long period depends on the facts of each case. The court distinguished this case from the Supreme Court decision, stating that the liability to pay charges arose in 1982 due to the retrospective revision of staff wages. The court held that the demand was not unreasonably delayed and did not suffer from any infirmity, ultimately dismissing the petition.In conclusion, the court upheld the demand for payment of additional supervision charges based on revised rates for services provided, rejecting the petitioner's arguments against retrospective imposition and unreasonableness of the demand. The court discharged the rule with costs, ruling in favor of the respondents.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
