<?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>2003 (3) TMI 727 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184324</link>
    <description>Where the liquor licensing regime places the full cost of excise supervision on licensees, the State may recover increased supervision charges caused by retrospective revision of supervisory staff pay, because &quot;cost&quot; includes actual expenditure on pay and allowances and no statutory time limit barred recovery. Advance collection under the licence conditions was treated as an administrative arrangement, not a waiver of further demand, and the licensees&#039; undertakings to comply with future orders defeated any plea of promissory estoppel. The demand was also upheld as part of the consideration for the State&#039;s exclusive privilege in liquor, not as an impermissible retrospective tax or excise exaction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2016 17:59:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=433890" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 727 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184324</link>
      <description>Where the liquor licensing regime places the full cost of excise supervision on licensees, the State may recover increased supervision charges caused by retrospective revision of supervisory staff pay, because &quot;cost&quot; includes actual expenditure on pay and allowances and no statutory time limit barred recovery. Advance collection under the licence conditions was treated as an administrative arrangement, not a waiver of further demand, and the licensees&#039; undertakings to comply with future orders defeated any plea of promissory estoppel. The demand was also upheld as part of the consideration for the State&#039;s exclusive privilege in liquor, not as an impermissible retrospective tax or excise exaction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184324</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>