https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153176 Withdrawal of a country liquor licence under section 43 did not require a separate show-cause notice where the statutory notice mechanism was followed, and the Collector who issued the licence was competent to withdraw it. Section 43 and rule 164-A imposed constitutionally permissible regulatory restrictions on liquor trade; their broad withdrawal power was not confined by ejusdem generis to grounds specified elsewhere and did not violate Articles 14 or 19. Public notice before granting an exclusive liquor privilege was a mandatory condition precedent. Its absence invalidated the original grant and independently justified licence withdrawal in the public interest. en-us Wed, 03 May 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Jun 2025 16:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153176 Withdrawal of a country liquor licence under section 43 did not require a separate show-cause notice where the statutory notice mechanism was followed, and the Collector who issued the licence was competent to withdraw it. Section 43 and rule 164-A imposed constitutionally permissible regulatory restrictions on liquor trade; their broad withdrawal power was not confined by ejusdem generis to grounds specified elsewhere and did not violate Articles 14 or 19. Public notice before granting an exclusive liquor privilege was a mandatory condition precedent. Its absence invalidated the original grant and independently justified licence withdrawal in the public interest. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 03 May 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153176