<?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>2017 (4) TMI 71 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341101</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court upheld the prohibition on liquor vends along national and state highways and the 500 metre buffer zone, treating the measure as a valid road-safety safeguard linked to preventing drunken driving and protecting life, health and public safety. It rejected the contention that the directions were beyond constitutional power or amounted to policy-making, noting that liquor trade carries no vested entitlement to a licence. The Court allowed limited relaxation for small local bodies, certain existing licences, and the special terrain of Meghalaya and Sikkim, but declined further dilution or reading down of the directions to apply only to shops selling liquor.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2017 07:23:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=463875" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 71 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341101</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court upheld the prohibition on liquor vends along national and state highways and the 500 metre buffer zone, treating the measure as a valid road-safety safeguard linked to preventing drunken driving and protecting life, health and public safety. It rejected the contention that the directions were beyond constitutional power or amounted to policy-making, noting that liquor trade carries no vested entitlement to a licence. The Court allowed limited relaxation for small local bodies, certain existing licences, and the special terrain of Meghalaya and Sikkim, but declined further dilution or reading down of the directions to apply only to shops selling liquor.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341101</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>