MOHAN MEAKIN LTD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals and writ petitions raise two issues. (1) It is the contention of the appellants and the petitioners, who are before us, that the respondents are seeking to recover supervision charges under Section 58A of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 with retrospective effect and hence their demand for such supervision charges is bad in law. (2) The appellants and the petitioners contend that having regard to Sections 105 and 106 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, no duty can be levied until the time that foreign liquor is removed for sale from a bonded warehouse. Therefore, the respondents are not entitled to levy duties in respect of breakages or villages which have taken place prior to the removal of goods from the bonded warehouses.

(2.) BOTH these questions were raised before Pendse, J., the learned Single Judge from whose Judgment the present appeals are filed. The learned Single Judge negatived both these contentions of the petitioners by his judgment and order dated 19th of June 1986. Both these issues were also raised before a Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 1168 of 1981 filed at Nagpur in the case of J.E. Bilmoria and Sons v. State of Maharashtra : 1990(2)BomCR108 (Nagpur Bench) Bombay (D.B.) decided on August 1, 1989 by M.S. Deshpande and D.J. Moharir JJ. The Division Bench did not agree with the above decision of Pendse, J. which was brought to its notice and decided both these issues in favour of the petitioners before it. Thereafter the issue relating to 'retrospective' supervision charges again came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Pendse and De Silva, JJ. in Appellate Side Writ Petition No. 940 of 1982 in the case of Gautstad Nayar Irani v. State of Maharashtra (1990)Appellate Side Writ Petition No. 940 of 1982 decided by Pendse and Da Silva JJ. on September 12, 1990 (Unrep). It seems that the judgment of the Division Bench at Nagpur was not brought to the notice of this Division Bench. The Division Bench followed the judgment of Pendse, J. referred to earlier and decided the issue of supervision charges against the petitioners by its judgment and order dated September 12, 1990. There are, thus, two conflicting judgments of the two Division Benches of this Court on the question of supervision charges.

(3.) FOR the sake of convenience, the appellants and the petitioners herein are referred to as the petitioners. The petitioners manufacture Indian made foreign liquor in various factories situated all over India. The petitioners carry on the business of importing, manufacturing, storing and selling Indian made foreign liquor. For this purpose the petitioners hold various licences issued under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and various Rules framed thereunder. They hold a licence, inter alia, under the Maharashtra Foreign Liquor (Storage in Bond) Rules, 1964 as also the Maharashtra Foreign Liquor (Import and Export) Rules, 1963. The petitioners have been threatened with non -renewal of their licences for the alleged non -payment of supervision charges and duty on breakages and villages which have occurred prior to the goods being issued for sale from bonded warehouses. The petitioners have challenged the non -renewal of their licences. I. Supervision charges