<?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>2008 (4) TMI 675 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161424</link>
    <description>The Rajasthan Excise Act amendments were upheld as a valid regulatory scheme governing intoxicating liquor and conveyances used in excise offences. The Court treated seizure, confiscation, and the bar on court jurisdiction as within State legislative competence under the State List, with any overlap with central enactments not creating invalid repugnancy where the law&#039;s pith and substance remained regulatory. The special confiscatory mechanism was also found to validly displace ordinary criminal court powers and the High Court&#039;s inherent jurisdiction in relation to the special statute. The amendments were further held not to be arbitrary or violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 or 301.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2014 12:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=343802" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 675 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161424</link>
      <description>The Rajasthan Excise Act amendments were upheld as a valid regulatory scheme governing intoxicating liquor and conveyances used in excise offences. The Court treated seizure, confiscation, and the bar on court jurisdiction as within State legislative competence under the State List, with any overlap with central enactments not creating invalid repugnancy where the law&#039;s pith and substance remained regulatory. The special confiscatory mechanism was also found to validly displace ordinary criminal court powers and the High Court&#039;s inherent jurisdiction in relation to the special statute. The amendments were further held not to be arbitrary or violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 or 301.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161424</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>