<?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>2004 (10) TMI 624 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282024</link>
    <description>Writ jurisdiction remained available because an alternative statutory appeal cannot decide the vires of Government Orders or constitutional arbitrariness, so the maintainability objection failed. The absence of an Advisory Committee did not invalidate molasses allotment orders where the enabling provision was treated as directory and the Controller retained power to act with prior State approval. The challenge to reserving 20% of molasses for distilleries manufacturing country liquor also failed, as Article 47 is not enforceable as such and the policy was not shown to be constitutionally impermissible. The exemption for sugar mills having their own distillery was confined to captive distilleries engaged in country liquor manufacture.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Jul 2019 16:03:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=579909" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (10) TMI 624 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282024</link>
      <description>Writ jurisdiction remained available because an alternative statutory appeal cannot decide the vires of Government Orders or constitutional arbitrariness, so the maintainability objection failed. The absence of an Advisory Committee did not invalidate molasses allotment orders where the enabling provision was treated as directory and the Controller retained power to act with prior State approval. The challenge to reserving 20% of molasses for distilleries manufacturing country liquor also failed, as Article 47 is not enforceable as such and the policy was not shown to be constitutionally impermissible. The exemption for sugar mills having their own distillery was confined to captive distilleries engaged in country liquor manufacture.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282024</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>