stocking liqueur- a privilege to wealthy

Policy may have been made under influence of liquer!

It is violation of right of equity.

This is the Excise Policy of the Madhya Pradesh Government. It generates Revenue for the State's exchequer. No state Government sacrifices such Revenue generating sources. And it is the internal Policy of the M.P Government

So what is the conclusion to be drawn? That the State to earn revenue can create discriminatory policies and it should not be commented or opposed because it is the internal policy of the MP government.

rambabu wrote:

This is the Excise Policy of the Madhya Pradesh Government. It generates Revenue for the State's exchequer. No state Government sacrifices such Revenue generating sources. And it is the internal Policy of the M.P Government

The policy of government should be fair to all citizens. There is nothing internal about this. 

 what harm is there if a man rich or poor stocks liquor? In the armed forces the government from the days of the Raj has been subsidising liquor for soldiers and officers who in fact stock it for the month. I think one needs to be pragmatic about it.

rambabu wrote:

This is the Excise Policy of the Madhya Pradesh Government. It generates Revenue for the State's exchequer. No state Government sacrifices such Revenue generating sources. And it is the internal Policy of the M.P Government

It is right but policy must be for all citizens not for specific  group of citizen.

Like rich people of the society, poor people also like to store and have liquor. Is it possible to poor people to buy and store costly bottles of liquor at home? It is discrimination. Government of Madya Presesh should understand the feelings of common people of the state. 

MG Singh wrote:

 what harm is there if a man rich or poor stocks liquor? In the armed forces the government from the days of the Raj has been subsidising liquor for soldiers and officers who in fact stock it for the month. I think one needs to be pragmatic about it.

I know Making Liquor availability to the  Armed forces through its Defense stores cheaply. But  to the common man it is not available. I have seen in Vizag.

in AP there is prohibition. Most of the States, selling liquor generates revenue to the State's exchequer.Which is why the respective States will not implement prohibition. unless Central Government implements Prohibition, in a strict way, nothing happens.

   why have prohibition? It was tried in USA for two years snd failed. Man must drink and prohibition leads to  greater ills.Thus stocking liquor should be ok

MG Singh wrote:

   why have prohibition? It was tried in USA for two years snd failed. Man must drink and prohibition leads to  greater ills.Thus stocking liquor should be ok

I agree with you. Not only in USA, even in India prohibition failed in many states. The more Liquor is prohibited, the more violations of Prohibition takes place

 

There's a very detailed report on the subject dating back to 2014, that should answer a lot of your questions at http://www.slideshare.net/dhanurajd/report-onliberalizingliquortradeinindia. It's a lot of stats and info that you might find very tedious unless you like data mining.  But it gives a good background and is very informative. In fact its, to my mind, very comprehensive though its over a year old. It will probably take a while for researcher's valuable material to reach the necessary authorities, unless they are looking in the right places. Otherwise it will the pages will just grow cobwebs in some library or elsewhere. My attention was drawn to this particular para which I"ve copied for you:

1. The black market in liquor is so large that it creates great uncertainty for the economy. It is impossible to estimate the size of this market. However, tax burden generated every year from this can be remarkable. Fines and penalties collected through the illegal trade are difficult to track. Liquor obtained through the black market can sometimes be of unpredictable quality and can even cause serious chronic illnesses.x Problems with Current Liquor Policies and Restrictions  High Taxes on Foreign and Domestic-Produced Liquor In 1947, Article 47 of the Constitution under the Directive Principles of State Policy stated that The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.xi Even though implementation of this Article differs from state to state, it is constantly used as a moral and legal foundation for restrictive policies. According to the law, alcohol is a sensitive state subject so that Imported Foreign Liquor (IFL) shall be heavily taxed and regulated by federal government. The current system of taxation on imported spirits including BIO (Bottled in Origin) and BII (Bottled in India) dates back to2001. Imported spirits are taxed at both the federal and the state levels. As a result of a case against Indian's liquor policies at WTO filed by the European Union, the country has removed some of its barriers to liquor imports. However, it later introduced new restrictive measures.xii Today average customs duties on IFL remain as high as 150 per cent, down from 450 to 700 per cent in 2000. In addition, federal/state taxes can push total taxes to around 550 per cent high (exact number might vary by states).