Judgment

K. Venkataswami, J.-The short question that arises for our considera­tion in this appeal is whether the State Government is empowered to collect differential supervision charges with retrospective effect under Section 58-A of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949?

2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows :-

The first appellant is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The second appellant is a share-holder and Director of the first appellant-company. The appellants, for the sake of convenience, will be referred to hereinafter as the ‘Company’. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of alcohol potable liquor, country liquor and alcohol based chemicals. As required under Section 58-A of the Act read with Condition No. 2 of the License issued to the Company in Form ‘I’, the Company used to pay in advance the supervi­sion charges towards the costs of the staff deputed for the purpose of supervising the operation of manufacture, storage and issue of spirit. The Inspector of Prohibition and Excise by a letter dated 19th July, 1979 informed the Company that the wages and dearness allowance of Government servants were increased ret