https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340077 A demand for excess establishment charges under Rule 4(41) of the Madhya Pradesh Distillery Rules, 1995 could not be invalidated merely by relying on precedent concerning a different rule under an earlier regulatory regime. The governing statutory scheme under the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 supported recovery of charges linked to the State's liquor-trade privilege and supervision costs, and the challenge to the rule itself did not succeed. The separate plea that the demand was arbitrary and unreasonable also failed because the pleadings and record did not provide a sufficient basis for quashing it. The High Court's order setting aside the demand was therefore reversed, while the respondent was left free to seek reconsideration before the State authorities. en-us Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340077 A demand for excess establishment charges under Rule 4(41) of the Madhya Pradesh Distillery Rules, 1995 could not be invalidated merely by relying on precedent concerning a different rule under an earlier regulatory regime. The governing statutory scheme under the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 supported recovery of charges linked to the State's liquor-trade privilege and supervision costs, and the challenge to the rule itself did not succeed. The separate plea that the demand was arbitrary and unreasonable also failed because the pleadings and record did not provide a sufficient basis for quashing it. The High Court's order setting aside the demand was therefore reversed, while the respondent was left free to seek reconsideration before the State authorities. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340077