TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (9) TMI 79
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uor (Storage in Bond) Rules, 1964. Section 58A of the Bombay Prohibition Act, inter alia, provides that the State Government may by general or special order direct that the manufacture, import, export, transport, storage, sale, purchase, etc. of any liquor shall be under the supervision of such prohibition and excise or police staff as they may deem proper to appoint and the cost of such staff shall be paid by person manufacturing, importing, exporting, etc. of the liquor. The charges paid by the manufacturers or importers under Section 58A of the Act are known as supervision charges. Condition No. 3 of F.L.I. licence prescribes that the petitioner shall pay to the Government in advance at the beginning of each quarter such costs or charges....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mand made in the year 1982 for the period commencing from 1974 onwards is unreasonable and, therefore, the demand notice should be struck down. As regards the first contention that the respondents have no authority to demand the difference in the cost of rendering service under Section 58A of the Act, an identical contention was raised in Writ Petition No. 631 of 1982 (Maneckjee Majshedjee v. The State of Maharashtra and others) filed on the Original Side of this Court and one of us (Pendse, J.) by judgment dated June 19, 1986 turned down the contention. It was held that what is charged by the State Government under Section 58A is fees for the service rendered and not the tax. Section 58A enables the State Government to appoint staff under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed amount equivalent to or even higher than the amount which is sought to be recovered for the entire period of the licence could have been demanded in a lump sum or spread over. Relying on the expression 'predetermined amount' Shri Setalwad urges that according to the terms of the licence, the predetermined price was recovered from the petitioner for each of the quarter and the condition nowhere prescribed that the charges are subject to alteration and, therefore, it is not open to demand additional charges because of revision of wages of the staff. We are unable to find any merit in the submission. The charges were settled for every quarter by taking into consideration the cost which is required to be incurred by the State Government for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d is not prescribed, the rule is neither unreasonable nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court then observed : "In the absence of any period of limitation it is settled that every authority is to exercise the power within a reasonable period. What would be reasonable period would depend upon the facts of each case. Whenever a question regarding the inordinate delay in issuance of notice of demand is raised, it would be open to the assessee to contend that it is bad on the ground of delay and it will be for the relevant officer to consider the question whether in the facts and circumstances of the case notice or demand for recovery was made within reasonable period. No hard and fast rules can be laid dow....