HC points a discover to the Delhi authorities, others argue in opposition to the brand new excise obligation directive

The Delhi Supreme Court shared another petition with the Delhi government and others on Monday contesting the new Excise Duty Directive on the grounds that the right to collect taxes cannot be auctioned under the new regime. The petition was submitted by the Delhi Liquor Traders Association through lawyers Arvind Bhatt & Siddharth Sharma.

A division of Supreme Judge DN Patel and Judge Jyoti Singh urged the Delhi government and others to table a response on the petition, listing the matter for the right to withdraw taxes (such as excise or sales tax) from the August 9th To raise or collect the public, not to auction and to allow the use of the taxes levied (in addition to the auction price paid) as profit, as is aimed at in the Delhi Excise Tax Directive for the year 2021-22 (“New Excise Policy”) or the ( contested spirits) iL-Policy. “

The petitioner has urged the Delhi Supreme Court to state and declare that the then government (after January 26th, 1950) could not grant a private citizen the “right to collect taxes” – and could not pocket them – in the consolidated fund can deposit; with a clarification that by giving a different name (or nomenclature) for “taxes” such a purpose – to enable a private citizen to collect and pocket taxes – cannot be achieved. “Hold on and explain that the sovereign right to levy taxes cannot be auctioned with the new consumption tax directive for the year 2021-22 (il-Policy) and that the tender of 06/26/2021 is unconstitutional,” pleaded the petitioner.

“Hold and declare that the new Excise Duty Directive is ultra vires -22”, demanded the petitioner and also requested that the tender of June 28, 2021, including all follow-up measures taken by the respondent to promote the aforementioned tender, the tender for The petitioner also wanted to ensure that any recovery of the actual tax component would go to the consolidated fund and prevent monopoly and cartel formation and that the policy conditions would not make it impossible for existing licensees and other “non-super-rich” to bid.

Until the new directive is formulated, a direct continuation of the existing L-7 and L-10 licensees, the petitioner urged the court. As a temporary measure, without prejudice to the petitioner’s objection to interim measures, those who already had the licenses before 02/24/2015 can be offered an offer under the same conditions for a single sales license, the petitioner said. (ANI)

(This story was not edited by Devdiscourse staff and is automatically generated from a syndicated feed.)