https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165261 Section 72(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 was held to permit retrospective rule-making without prior legislative approval or permission, because the statute required only that the rule be laid before both Houses with reasons; that laying requirement was treated as directory rather than a condition precedent. Rule 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licenses General Conditions) Rules, 1969 was also treated as directory, so non-compliance did not vitiate licence suspension proceedings absent shown prejudice. The reasoning turned on the civil nature of the consequences, the ability of licensees to contest the allegations, and the public-health purpose of excise control. en-us Mon, 17 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165261 Section 72(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 was held to permit retrospective rule-making without prior legislative approval or permission, because the statute required only that the rule be laid before both Houses with reasons; that laying requirement was treated as directory rather than a condition precedent. Rule 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licenses General Conditions) Rules, 1969 was also treated as directory, so non-compliance did not vitiate licence suspension proceedings absent shown prejudice. The reasoning turned on the civil nature of the consequences, the ability of licensees to contest the allegations, and the public-health purpose of excise control. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 17 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165261