<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2013 (6) TMI 36 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234211</link>
    <description>Municipal authorities may require excise licence holders to obtain a municipal licence and pay a licence fee for liquor shops where the levy operates as a regulatory fee under valid bye-laws. The Court held that a regulatory or compensatory fee does not require strict quid pro quo, liquor trade is subject to municipal regulation, and the impugned bye-laws were not inconsistent with the governing municipal law. It further found that publication and notice requirements were complied with and that the fee was not excessive. The municipal licence fee on IMFL and country liquor shops was therefore upheld as a valid regulatory levy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2015 09:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=196624" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (6) TMI 36 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234211</link>
      <description>Municipal authorities may require excise licence holders to obtain a municipal licence and pay a licence fee for liquor shops where the levy operates as a regulatory fee under valid bye-laws. The Court held that a regulatory or compensatory fee does not require strict quid pro quo, liquor trade is subject to municipal regulation, and the impugned bye-laws were not inconsistent with the governing municipal law. It further found that publication and notice requirements were complied with and that the fee was not excessive. The municipal licence fee on IMFL and country liquor shops was therefore upheld as a valid regulatory levy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234211</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>