TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (12) TMI 729
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....1998. A communication dated 17.6.2000 was issued calling upon the appellant to pay the arrears of supervision charges for the period 1.4.1996 to 31.12.2000 amounting to Rs. 7,43,666/- 5. Questioning the legality and/or validity of the said claim, a writ petition (No.4092 of 2000) was filed before the Bombay High Court by the appellant praying for, inter alia, the following reliefs : "(B) Hold and declare that the demand notice dated 17.6.2000 and August 2000 and the circular dated 17.6.1999, 30.7.1999 issued by the Respondents 2, and the demand notice issued by the Respondent No.3 dated 17.6.2000 towards the difference in the salary and wages, w.e.f. 1.1.1996 i.e., retrospective effect towards the supervision charges is therefore illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; and therefore strike down the same. (C) Issue a Writ prohibition or any other appropriate Writ, order or directions in the nature of Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, their officers and subordinates from demanding and/or recovering any amount towards the salary and wages with retrospective effect from 1.1.1996 as per the circular....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amining the validity of or quashing the Rules of 1988 and the consequential circular letter dated 30.7.1999 issued by appellant No. 2, namely, the Commissioner, since the demand notice was merely a consequential communication issued in furtherance of the Rules of 1998 and the circular letter dated 30.7.1999." Pursuant to the said decision, the Commissioner of Excise issued a circular letter, operative portion of which reads as under : "M/s. Polychem Ltd. & Ors. v. Govt. of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court had ruled in their decision on appeal No.3494/1991 that recovery of outstanding of supervision charges with retrospective effect is illegal. Considering the said decision the units who were provided supervision were informed vide above circular of this office that presently the difference of enhanced supervision charges with retrospective effect not be recovered. Further taking support of Supreme Court above decision some units had filed petitions in Mumbai High Court, Aurangabad and Nagpur Bench and the decision on some of them was in the favour of the units. A special petition is being filed in Supreme Court against that decision. If the decision of it is in favour of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mely sub-section (ii) of Rule (1) is not applicable to the Petitioners along with circular dated 17.6.1999 and 30.7.1999 being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(C) and 19(1) (G) of the Constitution of India and quash and set aside the same along with circular dated 17.6.1999, 30.7.1999, 17.6.2000 and 29.4.2003 and for that purpose issue necessary orders; (C) Hold and declare that, the demand notices dated 20.5.2003, 10.6.2003 and 26.6.2003 are illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(C) and 19(1)(G) of the Constitution of India and therefore same are liable to be quashed and set aside and for that purpose issue necessary orders; (D) Hold and declare that the said demand notices are illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(C) and 19(1)(G) of the Constitution of India and Section 114 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and further declare that the State is not entitled to charge the said interest in pursuance of the demand notices dated 20.5.2003, 10.6.2003 and 26.6.2003 and for that purpose issue necessary orders." 10. During the pendency of the said writ application, the respondents withdrew the said demand letter, sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om 1.1.1996. Admittedly, the matter relating to payment of supervision charges is governed by the provisions of Section 58-A of the Bombay Prohibition Act and the Rules framed by the State known as Country Liquor Rules. According to the appellants, the supervisory staff had been employed under sub-rule (12) of Rule 6; the supervisory charges were required to be paid to the State Government quarterly in advance. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule (2) of the Liquor Rules, 1976, the superivision charges are to be paid annually in advance. It is also not in dispute, although not very relevant for our purpose, that the appellant is entitled to recover the supervision charges or other charges from its customers by including such sum in the price of the liquor. 14. Appellant in Writ Petition No.4092 of 2000, indisputably questioned the right of the respondents to recover the supervision charges with retrospective effect. It was furthermore contended therein that in any event no interest was payable on the said charges, particularly in view of the fact that although the notification was issued in the year 1998 the demand was made in the year 2000. The said writ petition was allowed opi....