https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339651 The Karnataka High Court examined whether Rule 3(7-D) and the corresponding amendment to Rule 8 of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968, creating a special licence category for hotels and boarding houses owned by Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe persons, complied with Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) read with Article 19(6). The Court accepted the State's rule-making power under Section 71 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, but held that subordinate legislation in the liquor trade must apply equally to qualified applicants unless a classification is supported by intelligible differentia and rational nexus. It found the impugned provision arbitrary because the alleged relaxation imposed an additional ownership burden and lacked material showing that it would advance the stated upliftment objective. en-us Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Mar 2017 14:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339651 The Karnataka High Court examined whether Rule 3(7-D) and the corresponding amendment to Rule 8 of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968, creating a special licence category for hotels and boarding houses owned by Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe persons, complied with Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) read with Article 19(6). The Court accepted the State's rule-making power under Section 71 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, but held that subordinate legislation in the liquor trade must apply equally to qualified applicants unless a classification is supported by intelligible differentia and rational nexus. It found the impugned provision arbitrary because the alleged relaxation imposed an additional ownership burden and lacked material showing that it would advance the stated upliftment objective. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339651