TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court reinstates Excise Commissioner's decisions, upholding authority to order re-auctions for state revenue.</h1> <h3>Excise Commissioner of U.P. Versus Manminder Singh</h3> The court allowed all appeals, setting aside the High Court's orders and reinstating the Excise Commissioner's decisions. It upheld the Commissioner's ... - Issues:1. Auction of exclusive privileges of selling liquor in various districts.2. Authority of Excise Commissioner to set aside auctions and order re-auctions.3. Justifiability of High Court's interference in Excise Commissioner's decisions.4. Consideration of better offers after auctions.Analysis:1. The appeals in this case concern the auction of exclusive privileges for selling liquor in different districts. The questions raised in the appeals were similar to those decided in a previous case. The Excise Commissioner had set aside auctions and ordered re-auctions based on various grounds, including unsatisfactory bids and better offers received post-auction. Counsel for the respondents argued against the decisions, but the court found no merit in the submissions made.2. In one appeal related to the auction of country liquor shops, the Excise Commissioner's decision to order re-auction was challenged. The court upheld the Excise Commissioner's authority to set aside auctions in the interest of maximizing revenue for the state. The court emphasized that the Excise Commissioner's discretion in ordering re-auctions should not be interfered with by the High Court, especially when better offers were received post-auction.3. Another appeal involved the Excise Commissioner's decision to order re-auction based on a false claim of being prevented from participating in the auction. The court held that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the Excise Commissioner's decision, as it was made to secure the best revenue for the state. The court reiterated that the High Court should not issue a mandamus directing the Excise Commissioner to accept a specific bid and should not delve into detailed evidence regarding auction proceedings.4. The court ultimately allowed all the appeals, setting aside the High Court's orders and reinstating the Excise Commissioner's decisions in each case. The court emphasized the Excise Commissioner's discretion in considering better offers post-auction and ordering re-auctions in the interest of maximizing revenue. No costs were awarded in the case.
TaxTMI 
