https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275462 The Karnataka HC upheld an amended excise notification that imposed a minimum monthly lifting requirement on CL-2 and CL-9 liquor licensees. Procedural objections failed because draft publication, invitation of objections, and consideration at various levels were sufficient; consultation under the Business Rules was treated as directory, and no separate hearing was required. The Article 19(1)(g) challenge also failed because trade in intoxicating liquor is subject to broad State regulation and is not a protected fundamental right in the same sense as ordinary trade. The Article 14 challenge was rejected because the targeted classification had a rational nexus with preventing clandestine sales and protecting excise revenue. en-us Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Oct 2018 11:14:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275462 The Karnataka HC upheld an amended excise notification that imposed a minimum monthly lifting requirement on CL-2 and CL-9 liquor licensees. Procedural objections failed because draft publication, invitation of objections, and consideration at various levels were sufficient; consultation under the Business Rules was treated as directory, and no separate hearing was required. The Article 19(1)(g) challenge also failed because trade in intoxicating liquor is subject to broad State regulation and is not a protected fundamental right in the same sense as ordinary trade. The Article 14 challenge was rejected because the targeted classification had a rational nexus with preventing clandestine sales and protecting excise revenue. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275462