JUDGMENT Suhas Chandra Sen, J. : This appeal is directed against a Judgment and Order dated May 30, 1990 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the demand for differential excise duty under the Bengal Excise Act, 1909 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in respect of the duty paid stock of Indian made foreign liquor and beer (hereinafter referred to as "foreign liquor") held by the appellant on April 1, 1980. The said stock had already, suffered tax at the then prevailing rate under the Act prior to the said date but the demand was made on the basis of the enhanced rates which be effective from April 1, 1980. 2. The appellant carries on the business of purchasing and selling foreign liquor. For the said purpose the appellant holds a licence under the Act. The appellant purchases duty paid foreign liquor from distilleries and wholesale dealers and sells the same in retail to his customers. On March 20, 1980 in exercise of the powers conferred by s. 27 of the Act the State Government issues a notification bearing No. 283 Ex. (hereinafter referred to as the said notification) enhancing with effect from April 1, 1980 the rates of excise duty payable in respect of foreign liquor. Relying upon the Explanation contained in the said notification the State Excise Authorities by a notice dated April 9, 1980 required the appellant to pay the difference between the enhanced duty as per the said notification and the duty already paid on the foreign liquor lying in stock with the appellant as on April 1, 1980. The said notice was followed by a communication dated April 28, 1980 fixing the time for payment and thereafter by a notice dated June 9, 1980 requiring the appellant to show cause as to why proceedings should not be started against him or he should not be otherwise dealt with for non-payment of the differential duty. In the writ petition, the appellant had challenged the said demand and the said notices dated April 9, 1980, April 25, 1980 and June 9 1980. 3. Section 27 of the Act is the charging section and sub-section (2) thereof is as under: "S. 27. In the writ petition, the appellant had challenged the said demand and the said notices dated April 9, 1980, April 25, 1980 and June 9 1980. 3. Section 27 of the Act is the charging section and sub-section (2) thereof is as under: "S. 27. Power to impose duty on import, export, transport and manufacture.-(1) An excise duty or a countervailing duty, as the case may be, at such rate or rates as the State Government may direct, may be imposed, either generally, or for any specified local area, on- (a) any excisable article imported, or (b) any excisable article exported, or (c) any excisable article transported, or (d) any excisable article (other than tan) manufactured under any licence granted in respect of clause (a) of section 13, or (e) any hemp plant (Cannabis sativa) cultivated, or any portion of such plant collected, under any licence granted in respect of clause (b) or clause (c) of s. 13, or (f) Any excisable article manufactured in any distillery or brewery. licensed, established, authorised or continued under this Act. Explanation-Duty may be imposed on any article under this subsection at different rates-according to the purposes for which such article is intended to be used according to the place to which such article is to be removed for consumption, or according to the varying strengths and quality of such Article." 4. Section 28 of the Act is the machinery section which provides for the ways of levying the duty imposed under s. 27. Section 28 of the Act reads as under:- "S. 28, Ways of levying such duty.-Subject to any rules made under s. 86, clause (12) any duty imposed under s. 27 may be levied in any of the following ways :- (a) on an excisable article imported. (i) by payment (upon or before importation) in West Bengal or . Section 28 of the Act reads as under:- "S. 28, Ways of levying such duty.-Subject to any rules made under s. 86, clause (12) any duty imposed under s. 27 may be levied in any of the following ways :- (a) on an excisable article imported. (i) by payment (upon or before importation) in West Bengal or . in the State or territory from which the article is brought, or (ii) by payment upon issue for sale from a warehouse established, authorised or continued under this Act; (b) on an excisable article exported, by payment in West Bengal or in the State or territory to which the article is sent; (c) on an excisable article transported, (i) by payment in the district from which the article is sent, or (ii) by payment upon issue for sale from a warehouse established, authorised or continued under this Act; (d) on intoxicating drugs manufactured, cultivated or collected- (i) by a rate charged upon the quantity manufactured under a licence granted in respect of the provisions of s. 13 clause (a), or issued for sale from a warehouse established, authorised or continued under this Act, or (ii) by a rate assessed on the area covered by, or on the quantity or outturn of, the crop cultivated or collected, under a licence granted in respect of the provisions of s; 13 clause (b) or clause (c); . (e) on spirit or beer manufactured in any distillery or brewery licensed, established, authorised or continued under this Act- (i) by a rate charged upon the quantity produced in or issued from the distillery or brewery, as the case may be, or issued for sale from a warehouse established, authorised or continued under this Act, or (ii) in accordance with such scale of equivalent calculated on the quantity of materials used, or by the degree of attenuation of the wash of wort, as the case may be, as the State Government may prescribed; and (f) on tar; drawn under a licence granted under s. 14, sub-so (1),-by a tax on each tree from which the drawing of tar; is permitted: Provided that, where payment is made upon the issue of an excisable article for sale for a warehouse, it shall be at the rate of duty in-force on the date of issue of such article from such warehouse: Provided also that no tax shall be levied in respect of any tree from which tari is drawn from the manufacturer of gur or molasses and under such special conditions as the Excise Commissioner may prescribe". 5. Section 86 empowers the State Government to make Rules. Under clause (12) of s. 85, the State Government is authorised to make rules for prefixing the time, place and manner of levying on intoxicants. In exercise of the powers under s. 86(11) of the Act, the State Government framed Rule 225 under Notification no. 601 S.R. dated March 30, 1915. The Rule 225 is as follows:- "225. Duty to be paid before removal unless bond executed- (i) foreign liquor and country spirit- (a) imported under bond, or (b) manufactured in a distillery and stored in a distillery or excise warehouse. (ii) Gunja-manufactured in West Bengal or imported under bond and stored in. an excise warehouse. (iii) Phang-imported under bond and stored in an excise warehouse, shall be paid before removal from the distillery or excise warehouse unless a bond has been executed for such payment." 6. Under the charging s. 27, excise duty is leviable on the import, export, transportation or manufacturer of an excisable article at the rate or rates fixed by the State Government. Under the charging s. 27, excise duty is leviable on the import, export, transportation or manufacturer of an excisable article at the rate or rates fixed by the State Government. The said notification was issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by s. 27 fixing the enhanced rates at which duty was to be paid with effect from April 1, 1980 on foreign liquor imported, exported, transported or manufactured under any pass permit or licence, as the case may be, granted in that behalf. By the Explanation contained in the said Notification, however, fresh duty was sought to be imposed in respect of unsold stocks which had already suffered taxation on the happening of the taxable event prior to April, 1, 1980. The material portion of the said Notification is as under: "Government of West Bengal Department of Excise Notification No. 283. dated Calcutta the 20th March, 1980. Notification In exercise of the power conferred by s. 27 of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909 (Ben. Act V of 1909) the Government is pleased hereby to make with effect from the 1 st April, 1980 the following amendments in the orders published with notification no. 596 S.R. dated the 30th March, 1915, as subsequently amended (hereinafter referred to as the said order namely- Amendments In the said orders, for order 27, substitute the following Order: "27. Rates of duty on foreign liquor. Foreign liquors manufactured in India and specified in column (1) of the Schedule hereto appended shall be charged with duty at the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said schedule, when such liquors are imported, exported, transported or manufactured, under any pass, permit or licence, as the case may be, granted in that behalf. Explanation .-Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 225 of the Rules published with Notification No. 601 S.R. dated the 30th March, 1915 as amended, the holder of any licence mentioned in Rules 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 4A and 6A of the Bengal Excise (Foreign Liquor Licence Fee) Rules, 1942, as amended, shall pay duty on the stock of foreign liquor as may be held by him as opening stock on 1.4.80 at the rates mentioned hereinabove less duty already charged on the said stock of foreign liquor. By Order of the Government Sd/- N. C. Mukherjee, Dy. Secy. to the Govt. of West Bengal." 7. By Order of the Government Sd/- N. C. Mukherjee, Dy. Secy. to the Govt. of West Bengal." 7. It has been submitted that the aforesaid Explanation to the said notification dated March 20, 1980 is ultra vires s. 27 of the Act. Section 27 of the Act imposes duty on import, export, transportation or manufacture and the same is collected in accordance with s. 28 of the Act read with Rule 225 The taxable event under the said Act is in fact export, transport or manufactures. The liquor purchased by licensees such as the appellant and lying in stock with them on April 1, 1980 had admittedly already been charged to duty under s. 27 on the happening of the taxable event prior to April 1, 1980 and such duty had been collected by the State Government in the manner laid down in s. 28 of the Act read with rule, 225 of the Rules. None of the events specified in s. 27 of the Act took place in respect of the said duty paid unsold stock lying with the licensees on or after April 1, 1980 which could attract the higher duty fixed under the said Notification. The Explanation to the said notification imposes a fresh levy of tax on duty paid foreign liquor which is not permissible under the Act. The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 27 could not travel beyond the scope of the very section which authorised its issue. 8. The contention made on behalf of the appellant must be upheld. The opening words of the Explanation "Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 225" make the illegality of the Explanation self-evident. Realising that duty had already been paid on the stock held by the licensees such as appellant on April 1, 1980 in accordance with Rule 225 of the Rules, the State Government sought to make a provision for payment of different duty in respect thereof notwithstanding the provisions of rule 226. The duty under s. 27 of the Act has already been collected on foreign liquor in accordance with rule 225, there can be no question of imposition of any further duty on such duty paid foreign liquor under s. 27. The Explanation contained in the said Notification is in excess of the authority granted by s. 27 of the Act and is of no legal effect. 9. The Explanation contained in the said Notification is in excess of the authority granted by s. 27 of the Act and is of no legal effect. 9. Similar questions of law came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in several cases. In Bimal Chandra Banerjee vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1971 SC 517 the question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915, empowered the State Government to levy on an excisable article which had not been either imported, exported, transported or manufactured. In that case, the State Government had issued a notification in exercise of the rule-making power conferred by the Excise Act providing for payment of excise duty on liquor in respect of which none of the charging events had taken place. The Supreme Court quashed the impugned notification as ultra vires the statute. At page 520 of the reports it was held as under :- "18. No tax can be imposed by any bye-law or rule or regulation unless the statute under which the subordinate legislation is made specifically authorised in imposition even if it is assumed that the power to tax can be delegated to the executive. The basis of the statutory power conferred by the statute cannot be transgressed by the rule-making authority. A rule making authority has no plenary power. It has to act within the limits of the powers granted to it". The view taken in the aforesaid case was reiterated by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Firm Cappulal AIR 1976 SC 633 and Excise Commissioner vs. Ram Kumar AIR 1976 SC 2237 . 10. In Mohon Heakin Breweries Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Excise AIR 1970 SC 1171 , the facts were that duty on foreign liquor was enhanced with effect from November 1, 1967 and differential duty was sought to be demanded in respect of opening stock as on November 1, 1967. The Supreme Court held that the Bihar Act did not authorise levy of enhanced duty on the liquor imported before November 1, 1967 upon payment of duty and lying with the Importer on that date. 11. The Supreme Court held that the Bihar Act did not authorise levy of enhanced duty on the liquor imported before November 1, 1967 upon payment of duty and lying with the Importer on that date. 11. In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, and having regard to the provisions of s. 27 of the Act, it has to be held that the Explanation contained in the said notification bearing No. 283 Ex. dated March 20, 1980, is ultra vires and of no effect and the notices dated April 9, 1980 April 25, 1980 and June 9, 1980 issued to the appellant by the Respondents must be quashed. 12. On behalf of the respondents it has been contended that the notification has amended the Rule 225 of the Rules published with the notification No. 601 S.R. dated 30.3.1915. is not a Circular or Order. This is an amendment of rule under order of the Governor of West Bengal having the equal status of law but which can be framed by the State Government under the authority of s. 86 clause 12 of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909. 13. Section 27 of the Bengal Excise Act has authorised the State Government to impose Excise duty on Import, Export, Transport and manufacture of all Excisable articles. 14. There is no dispute that the appellant is in possession of excisable articles. There is also no dispute that the excisable articles have already been charged to tax under s. 27 of the Act on the happening of the taxable event. Can a further supplementary tax be imposed on the unsold stock of excisable articles merely because such stock remain unsold on April 1, 1980? No new taxable event took place on or after April 1, 1980. Failure to sell the entire stock of excisable articles by April 1, 1980 is not a taxable event. The legislature has authorised the State Government to make rules to prescribe the time, place and manner of levying duty. But the legislature has not been delegated the right of levy tax to the exclusive. Article 365 of the Constitution lays down that no tax can be levied or collected without authority of law. 15. The legislature has authorised the State Government to make rules to prescribe the time, place and manner of levying duty. But the legislature has not been delegated the right of levy tax to the exclusive. Article 365 of the Constitution lays down that no tax can be levied or collected without authority of law. 15. Our attention was drawn to a Single Bengal Judgment of this court in the case of Trade Links Pvt. Ltd. vs. Collector of Excise, Calcutta Civil Rule No. 11578(W) of 1980 dated 30th May, 1980. In that judgment the view was taken that the added explanation was not contrary to and/or inconsistent with the provision of main Act and the existing Rules. The explanation was well within the scope of the Act and rules and the explanation could not be treated as beyond the act of law. 16. We are unable to agree with this decision. The basic question is did the charging s. 27 of the Act authorise repeated levy of tax on the same taxable event. An enhanced rate of tax was imposed with' effect from April 1, 1980. If any taxable event takes place on or after April 1, 1980, a tax can be lawfully imposed on the taxable article on the happening of the taxable event. But for the taxable event which had taken place prior to April 1, 1980 the goods had already borne tax. No further tax can be levied merely because the goods remained unsold on April 1, 1980. 17. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal succeeds. The Judgment and the appeal is set aside. The impugned notices dated April 9, 1980, April 25, 1980 and June 9, 1980 are hereby quashed. 18. There is a prayer for stay of operation of the Judgment. Since we have followed three Supreme Court Judgments pray for stay cannot be granted. Appeal succeed. Stay refused. Aloke Chakraborty, J.: I agree.