<?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>2014 (3) TMI 456 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245003</link>
    <description>A liquor licensing policy may be revised by the State, and the deletion of three-star hotels from FL-3 eligibility was upheld as a valid policy reassessment under the regulatory scheme. However, the distance restriction introduced in Rule 13(3E) was struck down because it lacked a rational nexus with the stated objectives of public health and tourism promotion and operated arbitrarily in the circumstances, particularly where existing bar hotels were themselves non-standard and repeatedly regularised. The challenge therefore succeeded only in part: the exclusion of three-star hotels stood, while the distance-based restriction was invalidated under Article 14.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2014 14:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348727" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 456 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245003</link>
      <description>A liquor licensing policy may be revised by the State, and the deletion of three-star hotels from FL-3 eligibility was upheld as a valid policy reassessment under the regulatory scheme. However, the distance restriction introduced in Rule 13(3E) was struck down because it lacked a rational nexus with the stated objectives of public health and tourism promotion and operated arbitrarily in the circumstances, particularly where existing bar hotels were themselves non-standard and repeatedly regularised. The challenge therefore succeeded only in part: the exclusion of three-star hotels stood, while the distance-based restriction was invalidated under Article 14.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245003</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>