<?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 (2) TMI 744 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314450</link>
    <description>The levy of export pass fee on denatured and specially denatured spirit was found beyond the State&#039;s legislative competence because industrial alcohol in that form fell within Parliament&#039;s exclusive domain. The State&#039;s power extended only to limited regulation aimed at preventing diversion into potable liquor, and any fee had to bear a broad correlation with the cost of that regulation. As the impost was not shown to reflect any additional regulatory burden or service and was imposed merely on transport of denatured spirit, it was treated as a constitutionally unsupported regulatory charge. The levy was held unconstitutional and unenforceable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:40:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=756037" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 744 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314450</link>
      <description>The levy of export pass fee on denatured and specially denatured spirit was found beyond the State&#039;s legislative competence because industrial alcohol in that form fell within Parliament&#039;s exclusive domain. The State&#039;s power extended only to limited regulation aimed at preventing diversion into potable liquor, and any fee had to bear a broad correlation with the cost of that regulation. As the impost was not shown to reflect any additional regulatory burden or service and was imposed merely on transport of denatured spirit, it was treated as a constitutionally unsupported regulatory charge. The levy was held unconstitutional and unenforceable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314450</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>