Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search βœ•
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
β•³
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
βœ•
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close βœ•
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

        Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

        <h1>Supreme Court affirms State's authority on industrial alcohol regulation; upholds denaturation fee legality.</h1> The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, affirming the legislative competence of the State of Uttar Pradesh to regulate industrial alcohol and ... Whether the State of Uttar Pradesh has no power to legislate in respect of industrial alcohol or to levy taxes in respect thereof and further that the levy being not based on quid pro quo was otherwise bad? Held that:- The High Court has taken the view that in the case of regulatory fees, like the licence fees, existence of quid pro quo is not necessary although the fee imposed must not be, in the circumstances of the case, excessive. The High Court further held that keeping in view the quantum and nature of the work involved in supervising the process of denaturation and the consequent expenses incurred by the State, the fee of 7 paise per litre was reasonable and proper. We see no reason to differ with this view of the High Court. In view of the foregoing, the appeals are dismissed. Issues Involved1. Legislative Competence of the State of Uttar Pradesh to legislate on industrial alcohol.2. Validity of the levy of denaturation fee.3. Quid pro quo between the services rendered by the State and the rate of fee charged.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis1. Legislative Competence of the State of Uttar Pradesh to Legislate on Industrial AlcoholThe appellants challenged the Notification No.25/Licence/Part-3 dated 18.5.1990 issued by the Excise Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, arguing that the State of Uttar Pradesh has no power to legislate in respect of industrial alcohol. They contended that industrial alcohol falls within the exclusive domain of the Parliament by virtue of the declaration made in Section 2 of the Industries Development & Regulations Act, 1956 (IDR Act) and the addition of Item 26 in the Schedule to the Act. The High Court, however, referred to Entries 6, 8, 24, 51, and 66 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and concluded that the Notification is covered by Entries 6 and 8. Entry 6 pertains to 'Public health and sanitation; hospitals and dispensaries,' and Entry 8 pertains to 'Intoxicating liquors, that is to say, the production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase, and sale of intoxicating liquors.'The High Court further examined the scope of Section 18G of the IDR Act, which empowers the Central Government to regulate the supply, distribution, and trade of any article related to any scheduled industry. The High Court concluded that the impugned Notification was issued to ensure that rectified spirit sought to be used for industrial purposes is not diverted for obtaining country liquor or other forms of potable liquor, and thus, it was justified under Entry 6 of List-II (Public health) and Entry 8 of List-II (Possession and sale of intoxicating liquors). The High Court emphasized that the regulation was part of the general regulation of the trade in alcohol in the interest of public health.2. Validity of the Levy of Denaturation FeeThe appellants contended that the levy of a denaturation fee at the rate of 7 paise per litre was not based on quid pro quo and was therefore invalid. The High Court, however, distinguished between regulatory fees and compensatory fees. It opined that a licence fee imposed for regulatory purposes may not necessarily carry with it any service rendered but must be reasonable. The High Court referred to the counter-affidavit of the State, which indicated that a significant number of officers and employees are engaged in managing laboratories and supervising the distillation process, justifying the fee of 7 paise per litre.The High Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Synthetic Chemicals v. State of U.P., which held that the State has the power to lay down regulations to ensure that non-potable alcohol is not diverted and misused as a substitute for potable alcohol. The court concluded that denaturation of spirit meant for industrial use is within the legislative competence of the State and that the fee charged for this regulatory measure was valid.3. Quid Pro Quo Between the Services Rendered by the State and the Rate of Fee ChargedThe appellants argued that there was no quid pro quo between the expenses incurred by the State and the fees charged. The High Court, however, pointed out that the fee charged for regulatory purposes does not necessarily have to be linked to services rendered. The court emphasized that the fee must be reasonable and that a broad correlation between the expenditure incurred by the State and the fees charged is sufficient. The High Court found that the fee of 7 paise per litre was reasonable, given the extensive supervision and testing required to ensure proper denaturation of spirit.The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view, stating that the fee of 7 paise per litre was part of the regulatory measure for denaturation of spirit and supervision of the process. The court reiterated that the State has the power to legislate on matters related to public health and intoxicating liquors and that the fee charged was justified.ConclusionThe Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's judgment that the State of Uttar Pradesh has the legislative competence to regulate industrial alcohol and impose a denaturation fee. The court found that the fee was reasonable and justified as part of the regulatory measures to prevent the misuse of industrial alcohol for human consumption.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found