<?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>1997 (1) TMI 512 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159659</link>
    <description>A regulatory licence fee for denaturation of spirit used as industrial alcohol was upheld as within State legislative competence because it was tied to supervision aimed at preventing diversion of non-potable alcohol for human consumption. The levy was treated as an incident of regulation, not a tax on industrial alcohol, and the State&#039;s power to supervise denaturation was recognised despite the central industrial control scheme. The charge was also held reasonable because, for a regulatory fee, strict quid pro quo is not essential; a broad correlation with the cost of inspection, testing, laboratory support and staff administration was sufficient.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2014 13:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337492" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (1) TMI 512 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159659</link>
      <description>A regulatory licence fee for denaturation of spirit used as industrial alcohol was upheld as within State legislative competence because it was tied to supervision aimed at preventing diversion of non-potable alcohol for human consumption. The levy was treated as an incident of regulation, not a tax on industrial alcohol, and the State&#039;s power to supervise denaturation was recognised despite the central industrial control scheme. The charge was also held reasonable because, for a regulatory fee, strict quid pro quo is not essential; a broad correlation with the cost of inspection, testing, laboratory support and staff administration was sufficient.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159659</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>