https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384394 Rule 20(2) of the Karnataka Excise Rules was upheld as a valid regulatory safeguard requiring export verification certificates for liquor claimed to have been exported, since the requirement supported the State's power to regulate intoxicants under the Excise Act and Constitution. The prescribed sixty/ninety-day period for furnishing the certificates was treated as directory, because compliance depended on authorities in another State and could not be made rigidly mandatory without defeating the scheme. Delayed production of the certificates therefore did not by itself deny the reduced duty benefit where export was otherwise proved, and the impugned demand and coercive recovery were quashed. en-us Tue, 25 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Aug 2019 13:48:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384394 Rule 20(2) of the Karnataka Excise Rules was upheld as a valid regulatory safeguard requiring export verification certificates for liquor claimed to have been exported, since the requirement supported the State's power to regulate intoxicants under the Excise Act and Constitution. The prescribed sixty/ninety-day period for furnishing the certificates was treated as directory, because compliance depended on authorities in another State and could not be made rigidly mandatory without defeating the scheme. Delayed production of the certificates therefore did not by itself deny the reduced duty benefit where export was otherwise proved, and the impugned demand and coercive recovery were quashed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 25 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384394