https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382620 A levy under Rule 106(Tha) was construed as attaching not to imported rectified spirit as industrial alcohol, but to the finished potable liquor/IMFL produced after conversion into ENA and bottling. On that construction, the State was acting within its regulatory competence over intoxicating liquor, and the challenge on lack of legislative competence and Article 301 failed. Because the impost was not a fee in the strict sense on non-potable alcohol, proof of quid pro quo was not required. The levy was therefore upheld as valid and operative. en-us Tue, 02 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Jun 2022 12:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382620 A levy under Rule 106(Tha) was construed as attaching not to imported rectified spirit as industrial alcohol, but to the finished potable liquor/IMFL produced after conversion into ENA and bottling. On that construction, the State was acting within its regulatory competence over intoxicating liquor, and the challenge on lack of legislative competence and Article 301 failed. Because the impost was not a fee in the strict sense on non-potable alcohol, proof of quid pro quo was not required. The levy was therefore upheld as valid and operative. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 02 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382620