https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245284 Amended excise rules were read to expressly permit relocation of undisposed A-4 shops, including beyond the original area or district, so long as policy limits were respected, including slab restrictions. The relocation notifications were upheld as a rational revenue-augmentation measure applied to a distinct class of shops and were found not to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or barred by Article 14, natural justice, or legitimate expectation. Although Rule 5(1) contemplated issue of the notification by the licensing authority and the District Collectors were not the competent authority, the Court declined writ relief in equity, noting the petitioners' prior benefit and the wider public interest. en-us Wed, 05 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Mar 2014 08:59:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245284 Amended excise rules were read to expressly permit relocation of undisposed A-4 shops, including beyond the original area or district, so long as policy limits were respected, including slab restrictions. The relocation notifications were upheld as a rational revenue-augmentation measure applied to a distinct class of shops and were found not to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or barred by Article 14, natural justice, or legitimate expectation. Although Rule 5(1) contemplated issue of the notification by the licensing authority and the District Collectors were not the competent authority, the Court declined writ relief in equity, noting the petitioners' prior benefit and the wider public interest. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 05 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245284