https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165294 Section 58A of the Bombay Prohibition Act was treated as a regulatory levy for supervision of industrial alcohol manufacture and storage, recoverable from the person carrying on the activity. It was distinguished from a tax or excise duty, so the State's competence was upheld despite the limits recognised in Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. The measure was traced to Entry 33 of List III, which permits State regulation of trade, commerce, production, supply and distribution of the relevant goods, and the absence of central legislation on the specific regulatory aspect supported competence. The challenge based on absence of quid pro quo was rejected. en-us Tue, 28 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Jul 2014 14:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165294 Section 58A of the Bombay Prohibition Act was treated as a regulatory levy for supervision of industrial alcohol manufacture and storage, recoverable from the person carrying on the activity. It was distinguished from a tax or excise duty, so the State's competence was upheld despite the limits recognised in Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. The measure was traced to Entry 33 of List III, which permits State regulation of trade, commerce, production, supply and distribution of the relevant goods, and the absence of central legislation on the specific regulatory aspect supported competence. The challenge based on absence of quid pro quo was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 28 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165294