https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168102 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. en-us Mon, 17 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jan 2015 16:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168102 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 17 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168102