<?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>1988 (2) TMI 469 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183345</link>
    <description>Under the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and Distillery Rules, amounts recovered from a distillery licensee for salaries and allowances of excise staff posted at the licensed premises were treated as part of the consideration for the State&#039;s grant of the liquor privilege. In the field of intoxicants, the State may part with its exclusive privilege for a price, and the label attached to the levy does not determine its true character. The recovery did not become invalid merely because it reflected actual government expenditure or was described as establishment charges; it was not an impermissible tax, excise duty, or fee. The High Court view was reversed and the State demand upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2016 17:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=430710" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (2) TMI 469 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183345</link>
      <description>Under the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and Distillery Rules, amounts recovered from a distillery licensee for salaries and allowances of excise staff posted at the licensed premises were treated as part of the consideration for the State&#039;s grant of the liquor privilege. In the field of intoxicants, the State may part with its exclusive privilege for a price, and the label attached to the levy does not determine its true character. The recovery did not become invalid merely because it reflected actual government expenditure or was described as establishment charges; it was not an impermissible tax, excise duty, or fee. The High Court view was reversed and the State demand upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183345</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>