https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275493 A post-deletion demand under Rule 14(2) of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian & Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1968 could not be challenged on the footing that a prior hearing was still required as of right, because the rule had already been deleted when the demand and related order were made. The liability was treated as a fiscal consequence for short lifting of liquor, not as a penalty requiring proof of mens rea, and the petitioner had not raised timely objections or offered an explanation despite notice. Writ relief was also refused because the petitioner suppressed material facts, including an undertaking to the Department and a subsequent licensing order, and a writ court may deny discretionary relief for lack of full disclosure. en-us Tue, 27 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Oct 2018 07:33:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275493 A post-deletion demand under Rule 14(2) of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian & Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1968 could not be challenged on the footing that a prior hearing was still required as of right, because the rule had already been deleted when the demand and related order were made. The liability was treated as a fiscal consequence for short lifting of liquor, not as a penalty requiring proof of mens rea, and the petitioner had not raised timely objections or offered an explanation despite notice. Writ relief was also refused because the petitioner suppressed material facts, including an undertaking to the Department and a subsequent licensing order, and a writ court may deny discretionary relief for lack of full disclosure. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 27 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275493