https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165483 Section 58-A of the Bombay Prohibition Act permitted advance levy and collection of supervision charges for the relevant quarter, but it did not expressly or by necessary implication authorise retrospective enhancement. A later increase in wages and dearness allowance of Government staff could not justify a demand for differential supervision charges for past periods. The earlier Division Bench view was accepted as correctly stating the law, and retrospective fiscal recovery was held impermissible in the absence of statutory authority. Consequently, the demand for retrospective recovery of differential supervision charges was unsustainable. en-us Tue, 04 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165483 Section 58-A of the Bombay Prohibition Act permitted advance levy and collection of supervision charges for the relevant quarter, but it did not expressly or by necessary implication authorise retrospective enhancement. A later increase in wages and dearness allowance of Government staff could not justify a demand for differential supervision charges for past periods. The earlier Division Bench view was accepted as correctly stating the law, and retrospective fiscal recovery was held impermissible in the absence of statutory authority. Consequently, the demand for retrospective recovery of differential supervision charges was unsustainable. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 04 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165483