https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206774 When the State operated as wholesaler of country-made liquor, it was treated as bound to collect tax at source from purchasers under section 206C, and the demand and recovery steps were upheld where defaults continued and the levy was quantified under the applicable statutory scheme, including section 44AC. Claims based on delay, article 289 immunity, and alleged double taxation were rejected: delay was not established on the facts, article 289 did not apply because the levy was an advance collection linked to retailers' income, and limited material on a few retailers was insufficient to displace the recovery. en-us Thu, 02 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Dec 2012 11:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206774 When the State operated as wholesaler of country-made liquor, it was treated as bound to collect tax at source from purchasers under section 206C, and the demand and recovery steps were upheld where defaults continued and the levy was quantified under the applicable statutory scheme, including section 44AC. Claims based on delay, article 289 immunity, and alleged double taxation were rejected: delay was not established on the facts, article 289 did not apply because the levy was an advance collection linked to retailers' income, and limited material on a few retailers was insufficient to displace the recovery. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 02 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206774