https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186222 Delegated rule-making under the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act could regulate licence conditions and fees, but it could not create a levy beyond the statute. Rule 22 was therefore ultra vires to the extent it authorised recovery from the brewer of amounts exceeding 5% of the duty leviable. The impugned demand was held not to be a genuine licence fee or consideration, but in substance an unauthorised additional excise duty linked to a duty shortfall. The demand was quashed because a subordinate rule cannot impose, directly or indirectly, a tax-like exaction without clear statutory authority. en-us Tue, 21 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Sep 2016 11:58:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186222 Delegated rule-making under the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act could regulate licence conditions and fees, but it could not create a levy beyond the statute. Rule 22 was therefore ultra vires to the extent it authorised recovery from the brewer of amounts exceeding 5% of the duty leviable. The impugned demand was held not to be a genuine licence fee or consideration, but in substance an unauthorised additional excise duty linked to a duty shortfall. The demand was quashed because a subordinate rule cannot impose, directly or indirectly, a tax-like exaction without clear statutory authority. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 21 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186222