https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258729 A molasses regulation policy requiring 22% reservation and a 1:3.5 reserved-to-unreserved ratio was examined under the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964. The Court held that a party which had participated through its representative association in the statutory advisory process and had accepted relaxation under the policy could not later challenge the reservation and ratio, as the challenge was barred by estoppel. The policy was also found reasonable and non-arbitrary because it operated within the statutory scheme, included case-by-case relaxation, and was directed to secure supply for distilleries and State revenue. No violation of Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) was made out. en-us Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Apr 2015 20:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258729 A molasses regulation policy requiring 22% reservation and a 1:3.5 reserved-to-unreserved ratio was examined under the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964. The Court held that a party which had participated through its representative association in the statutory advisory process and had accepted relaxation under the policy could not later challenge the reservation and ratio, as the challenge was barred by estoppel. The policy was also found reasonable and non-arbitrary because it operated within the statutory scheme, included case-by-case relaxation, and was directed to secure supply for distilleries and State revenue. No violation of Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) was made out. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258729