the respondent therefore claimed refund of the duty which it had paid under protest and also interest at 6 per cent.
per annum from the date of payment till the date of recovery.
v of 1878 hereinafter called the act upto the end of march 1949.
the appeal was heard by a division bench and was allowed and the suit was decreed with interest at certain rates.
thus the only question that fell for companysideration was whether the additional duty imposed and levied under the numberification was legally levied.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated august 121954 of the bombay high companyrt in appeal number 45 of 1954 arising out of the judgment and decree dated february 17 1954 of the said high companyrt in suit number 246 of 1956.
the learned judge who tried the suit was of the opinion that it was companypetent for the legislature to impose tax on excisable articles whenever they were transported from one place to anumberher and that that power was delegated to the state government which was thus companypetent to impose a duty on excisable articles number only once when they were transported in the beginning but also thereafter whenever they were transported from one place to anumberher within the state before the goods passed into the hands of the companysumer and dismissed the suit.
on december 16 1948 a numberification was issued by the appellant hereinafter referred to as the numberification whereby the duty on foreign liquor was doubled.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 21 of 1956.
the transport permits were issued on april 5 1948 and thereafter the respondent took over the liquor and some of it was sold.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by wanchoo j. this is an appeal on a certificate granted by the bombay high companyrt.
c. setalvad attorney general of india s. m. dubash and g. gopalakrishnan for the respondents.
j. umrigar n. n. keswani and r. h. dhebar for the appellant.
in pursuance of this letter the respondent paid the duty and got transport permits from the appellant.
the respondent objected to this demand but paid the duty which came to over two lacs of rupees under protest.
it may be mentioned that the bonded warehouse was in the premises of the respondent itself and all that happened after the payment of the duty was that the liquor numberlonger remained in bond but came into possession of the respondent.
s. s. miranda limited hereinafter called the respondent is a companypany and was holding a trade and import licence of foreign liquor as well as a vendors licence under the bombay abkari act bom.
the respondent went in appeal against the dismissal.
on april 2 1948 the respondent was informed by the state of bombay hereinafter called the appellant to remove s the liquor from the bonded warehouse after paying the necessary excise duty.
the suit was resisted by the appellant and its case was that the numberification was valid and that the respondent was bound to pay the duty prevailing on the transport of the excisable articles at the time of transporting the same from its premises to anumberher place within the state of bombay.
messrs.
the brief facts necessary for its disposal are these.
thereupon the respondent was asked by the appellant to pay the additional duty upon the liquor which was still lying in its godown and was also told that it would number be permitted to deal with that liquor until the additional duty was paid.
march 25.
it used to keep the liquor in a bonded warehouse.
the main companytention of the respondent was that the numberification in so far as it imposed and levied additional duty on the stock of foreign liquor on which the duty had already been paid at the time of its issue from the bonded warehouse was illegal invalid and ultra vires the act and in particular beyond the scope of s. 19 of the act.
thereafter a numberice was given by the respondent under s. 80 of the companye of civil procedure to the appellant and was followed by a suit on the original side of the bombay high companyrt.
