https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169518 A compulsory surcharge on a liquor contract was treated as unauthorised because the auction conditions did not create a binding promise to pay it, the forest commutation rules were inapplicable absent a voluntary agreement to take forest produce, and the levy could not be characterised as royalty when it operated as a tax or cess requiring authority of law under Article 265. The demand also could not be recovered as arrears of land revenue, because the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code permits such recovery of contractual dues only where the contract expressly authorises it. On the stated facts, the surcharge and revenue recovery were unlawful. en-us Fri, 24 Apr 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:29:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169518 A compulsory surcharge on a liquor contract was treated as unauthorised because the auction conditions did not create a binding promise to pay it, the forest commutation rules were inapplicable absent a voluntary agreement to take forest produce, and the levy could not be characterised as royalty when it operated as a tax or cess requiring authority of law under Article 265. The demand also could not be recovered as arrears of land revenue, because the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code permits such recovery of contractual dues only where the contract expressly authorises it. On the stated facts, the surcharge and revenue recovery were unlawful. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 24 Apr 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169518