https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=226207 Trade in potable liquor is a State privilege, not a fundamental right, and the State may regulate, restrict or settle liquor shops for revenue purposes; Article 47 does not bar opening additional shops. The excise policy challenge failed because the increase in shops was supported by district reports and surveys, and the 15% ceiling operated as an enabling guideline rather than an absolute prohibition without Government approval. The objection to the proposed 500-metre distance rule was premature because final demarcation had not yet been fixed. Advance individual notice to existing licence holders was not mandatory, as the statute required wide publicity and public intimation to prospective applicants. en-us Tue, 16 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=226207 Trade in potable liquor is a State privilege, not a fundamental right, and the State may regulate, restrict or settle liquor shops for revenue purposes; Article 47 does not bar opening additional shops. The excise policy challenge failed because the increase in shops was supported by district reports and surveys, and the 15% ceiling operated as an enabling guideline rather than an absolute prohibition without Government approval. The objection to the proposed 500-metre distance rule was premature because final demarcation had not yet been fixed. Advance individual notice to existing licence holders was not mandatory, as the statute required wide publicity and public intimation to prospective applicants. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 16 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=226207