ORDER A.H. Khan J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of mandamus or a direction, quashing the order of the Excise Department in respect of the demands made regarding the Excise duty. 2. The petitioner is a licence-holder for the sale of foreign liquor at Gwalior. He was in possession of some stock of Indian made foreign liquor, which he had purchased after paying the requisite excise duty in force at the time of the purchase. Subsequent to his purchase, the Government of Madhya Bharat issued two Notifications. By Notification No. 42/VII dated 24th March 1955 published in the Madhya Bharat Government Gazettee of 26th March 1955, Excise duty on Indian made foreign liquor was raised from Rs. 42/12/- to Rs. 56/4/- per L. P. Gallon with effect from 1st April 1955; by second Notification No. 124/U/SR, dated 16th October 1957 published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette of 11/18/25 October 1957, the Excise duty was further enhanced from Rs. 56/4/- to Rs. 60/- per L. P. Gallon. A couple of months after these Notifications Sub-Inspector, Excise, Gwalior Division, served an order on the petitioner to deposit the difference of duty on his existing stock of Indian made liquor (on which he had already paid Excise-duty) in accordance with the two Notifications referred to above. The petitioner made a representation to the officer concerned that having already paid Excise Duty on the purchases according to the rates then in force, he was not liable to pay the enhanced duty. His representation was turned down. On 11-2-58, he served a notice on the Madhya Pradesh Government for demand of justice, but no reply was received from the Government. The petitioner has filed this writ and his main contentions are two:- One, that the two Notifications on the basis of which further duty is demanded nowhere say that further duty shall be levied on the existing stocks in the hand of the dealer. Two, that having paid the duty at the time of purchase and transport at the rate then in force, he is not liable to pay any more, because the Notifications are not retrospective in effect. 3. Two, that having paid the duty at the time of purchase and transport at the rate then in force, he is not liable to pay any more, because the Notifications are not retrospective in effect. 3. Let us first examine the arguments of the petitioner; the two Notifications on the basis of which difference in excise-duty is sought to be charged run as follows:- Notification No. 42/VII-SR-dated 24th March 1955- "In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Madhya Bharat Excise Act, Samvat 2009 (Act No. 14 of 1952), the Government are pleased to direct that the Excise Duty on Indian made Foreign Liquor shall be levied at the rate of Rs. 56/4/- per L. P. Gallon with effect from 1st April, 1955. The concessional rates of Excise-duty of Rs. 12/8/-per L. P. G. for Rum and Rs. 28/2/- per L. P. G. for other I. M. F. L. supplied by Military Canteens to the Defence Department shall continue as before, in accordance with the Notification published in the Madhya Bharat Government Gazette dated 26-1-52." Notification No. 124/U/SR dated Bhopal, 16th October 1957 - "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Madhya Bharat Excise Act Samvat 2009 (Act No. 14 of 1952) and in supersession of Notification No. 42/VII-SR, dated 26th March, 1955, the State Government are pleased to direct that in the Madhya Bharat region, the Excise Duty on Indian made Foreign Liquors shall be levied at the rate specified below, namely :- Particulars Rate of duty per L.P.G. Indian made Foreign Liquor. Rs 60/-. Rum supplied by Military Canteens to the Military personnels other than Officers. Rs. 12/50 I. M. F. L. other than Rum supplied by Military Canteens to Military personnels other than Officers. Rs 30/-. This Notification shall take effect from the date of its publication in the Madhya Pradesh Government Gazette." These Notifications nowhere say that the difference in the Excise-duty should be charged on the existing stock of a dealer, who has already paid duty at the time of purchase and transport of goods. It being so, it follows that the Government is not justified in charging enhanced duty on the existing stock in the lands of a dealer. The contention of the petitioner that these Notifications are not retrospective in operation is also correct. It being so, it follows that the Government is not justified in charging enhanced duty on the existing stock in the lands of a dealer. The contention of the petitioner that these Notifications are not retrospective in operation is also correct. One of the principle of interpretation of a statute (which would equally apply to the interpretation of any Notification issued under any statute) is that a statute is always regarded as prospective and not retrospective, unless there is express direction in the statute to that effect. The first Notification says that it will come into force from 1-4-1955 and that the second Notification will take effect from the date of its publication in the Madhya Pradesh Government Gazette dated 15th October 1957. I have no doubt that having regard to the language of the Notification, and also to the dates from which they are meant to take effect, the enhanced duty is to be charged in the future and that enhanced duty or its difference cannot be charged on transactions past and closed. 4. To enforce his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to sections 24, 25 and 14 of the Madhya Bharat Excise Act (hereto-after referred to as "the Act") Section 24 is a charging section. The Government under it, is authorised to levy Excise-duty on all exciseable articles. Section 25 of the Act lays down ways of levying such duty. Clause 2 of Sec 25 of the Act says that where payment is made upon an issue of an exciseable article for sale, it shall be at the rate of duty in force on the date of issue of such article from the warehouse. The word "warehouse" has not been defined in the Act, but it is well understood. It is a stock-room or store-room, where goods are kept and the purchaser can only take away those goods from there after paying the requisite duty. According to this, before the petitioner purchased the liquor, he paid duty at the rate in force on the date of issue. This fact is admitted in the Return. 5. It is a stock-room or store-room, where goods are kept and the purchaser can only take away those goods from there after paying the requisite duty. According to this, before the petitioner purchased the liquor, he paid duty at the rate in force on the date of issue. This fact is admitted in the Return. 5. Section 14 of the Act runs thus :- "Without the sanction of the Government no intoxicant shall be removed from any distillery, brewery, warehouse or other place of storage established or licensed under this Act, unless the duty (if any) payable under Chapter V has been paid or a bond has been executed for the payment thereof." This section requires that no intoxicant can be removed from any distillery, brewery, warehouse or other places of storage, unless duty payable under Chapter V (which includes Sections 24 and 25 of the Act) has been paid. At the time of the removal, duty in force under Sec. 24 of the Act has been admittedly paid and there is nothing in the Act to show that at any subsequent stage if the Government has enhanced the Excise Duty, the difference of the duty on articles on which the purchaser had already paid duty then in force can be recovered from the purchaser. 6. In the Return, the Government has admitted that at the time of the purchase, the petitioner had paid the duty then in force, but it is submitted that according to Section 73 of the Rules for the Distribution of Shops and Grant of Licences, Samvat 2009, made under Secs. 68 (2) (e) (f) (h) (i) of the Madhya Bharat Excise Act of 2009 (Act No. 14 of 1952), the Government can enhance the duty during the currency of the licence and order the petitioner to pay the difference of the duty on the existing stock. 7. The State takes its stand on Section 73 of the Rules made by it and known as Rules for Distribution of Shops and Grant of Licences, Samvat 2009. 7. The State takes its stand on Section 73 of the Rules made by it and known as Rules for Distribution of Shops and Grant of Licences, Samvat 2009. These Rules are made under Sub-Clauses (e) (f) (h) and (i) of Clause 2 of Section 68 and they are as follows:- "(e) regulating the periods and localities for which, and the persons or classes of persons to whom, licences for the wholesale or retail vend of any intoxicant may be granted, and regulating the number of such licenses which may be granted in any local area; (f) prescribing the procedure to be followed and the matters to be ascertained before any licence for such vend is granted for any locality; (h) prescribing the authority by, the form in which, and the terms and conditions on and subject to which, any licence, permit or pass shall be granted, and may, by such rules, among other matters- (i) fix the period for which any licence, permit or pass shall continue in force; (ii) prescribe the scale of fees or the manner of fixing the fees payable in respect of any such licence, permit or pass; (iii) prescribe the amount of security to be deposited by holder of any licence, permit or pass for the performance of the conditions of the same; (iv) prescribe the accounts to be maintained and the returns to be submitted by licence-holders; and (v) prohibit or regulate the partnership in or the transfer of licences; (i) prescribing the measures for ascertaining local public opinion and providing for the appointment of advisory committees and specifying their powers and duties. None of the sub-clauses of Section 68 (2) referred to above (on which the State takes its stand and justifies the realisation of the difference according to enhanced duty on goods on which duty is already paid) empowers the State to make a Rule No. 73 The framing of Rule 73 of the Rules under Section 68 (2) (e) (f) (h) and (i) is open to serious objection and as such a rule can not obviously be held to be valid. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred us to a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 45 of 1954 (Messers S. S. Miranda Ltd Vs. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred us to a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 45 of 1954 (Messers S. S. Miranda Ltd Vs. The State of Bombay) and confirmed by the Supreme Court by its decision in Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1956 of 15th March 1960. In the Bombay case, Messers S. S. Miranda Ltd. brought a suit against the State of Bombay for a refund of a sum of over two lakhs on the ground that they had paid the amount under protest when additional duty was levied on their existing stock (according to a Notification) on which they had already paid duty at the rate then in force at the time of taking delivery of goods. Chagla C. J. (as he then was) held that the Notification was bad to the extent it sought to impose additional duty and decreed the suit for the refund. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the decision. 9. The present case is almost on all fours with the Bombay case, with this difference that whereas in the Bombay case, the licencee had paid duty under protest and sought its refund, in the instant case no duty has been paid under protest and this petition is for issue of a writ, directing the State of Madhya Pradesh not to realise the difference in duty. 10. For reasons stated above, there is both reason and authority that the State is not justified in demanding additional duty at the enhanced rate on the existing stock on which duty has already been paid at the time of purchase of goods at the rate then in force. Let a writ of mandamus be issued against the State directing it not to realise the difference in between the duty already paid by the petitioner on his existing stock and then enhanced rate of duty subsequently levied. Orders dated 12-12-57 of the Sub-Inspector, Gwalior Division and No. 1053 dated 27-2-1958 of the District Excise Officer, Gwalior, demanding difference in duty are also quashed. Parties to bear their own costs. 11. I agree.