skc 1 WP-4623-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4623 OF 2011 M/s. Bharat Wines ..Petitioners versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. D. B. Savant for Petitioners. Mr. V. D. Patil - Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents - State. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. R. JOSHI, JJ. 14 July 2011. P.C. : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondents - State. 2. Writ petition is directed against the demand notice dated 5th March 2011 issued by the respondent no. 4 under Section 58A of The Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 whereby the petitioners are called upon to pay the costs of the excise supervisory staff posted at its premises (difference based on sixth pay commission recommendation). skc 2 WP-4623-11 3. At the outset, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the issue whether State Government is justified in demanding additional payment towards excise supervision consequent to retrospective revision of pay scales of the government servant is no more res integra and has been concluded by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Government of Maharashtra & Ors vs. M/s. Deokar’s Distillery [JT 2003 (3) SC 86]. The relevant observations reads thus : “At the time of grant of licence respondent agreeing to abide by the stipulated conditions. One of the conditions in licence providing that the respondent licensee shall pay full cost of excise supervisory staff posted at its premises. Government revising the pay scales of its employees with retrospective effect and accordingly demanding from the respondent increased charges of supervision by Excise Staff – Respondent however challenging the demand of additional cost on the ground that the cost of supervision having been paid in advance it cannot be saddled with additional liability since it cannot pass on the burden to the purchasers – High Court allowing the writ filed by the respondents and quashing the demand notices – Validity – Whether State government justified in demanding additional payment towards excise supervision consequent to retrospective revision of the pay scales of government servants. Allowing the appeals preferred by the State skc 3 WP-4623-11 held (by a two to one majority) that the respondents cannot wriggle out of the contractual obligation of payment of the entire cost of supervision regarding which they receive a final account or bill through a demand notice and therefore the respondents ought to pay the amount demanded. High Court having erred in quashing the demand notices, its judgment and order not sustainable.” The above referred observations of the Apex Court clearly demonstrate that the demand notice issued by the respondent no.4 under Section 58A of Act of 1949 for deposit of additional costs towards excise supervision consequent to retrospective revision of pay scales of the government servant is just and proper and is sustainable in law. The issue therefore stands concluded by the above referred decision of the Apex Court. Petition therefore suffers from lack of merits. Same is dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (A. R. JOSHI, J.)