Licensed business partnership remains valid where the licence stays with the licensee and no express statutory voiding rule applies.

A partnership formed by a licensee for carrying on a licensed excise business is not, by itself, a transfer of the licence, because the licence remains with the licensee and is not assigned to the other partners. Section 15 of the excise law does not make such a partnership illegal merely because non-licensee partners share profits or losses, and rule 19(2) non-compliance does not void the partnership unless the statute expressly so provides. The arrangement is also not void under section 23 of the Indian Contract Act where it is intended to operate lawfully and no independent public policy bar is shown. Such partnerships were treated as valid for income-tax registration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a partnership formed by a licensee under the excise law amounts to a transfer of the licence under rule 19(1). (ii) Whether section 15 of the excise law makes the partnership illegal because non-licensee partners participate in the business. (iii) Whether failure to obtain previous permission for introducing or excluding partners under rule 19(2) renders the partnership illegal. (iv) Whether the partnership is void under section 23 of the Indian Contract Act on the ground of public policy.

Issue (i): Whether a partnership formed by a licensee under the excise law amounts to a transfer of the licence under rule 19(1).

Analysis: The Court held that admitting others into a partnership to share profits or losses from the licensed business does not, by itself, amount to a transfer of the licence. The licence remains with the licensee, and the arrangement is not the same as an actual alienation or assignment of the licence to another person. Earlier contrary views were treated as having been displaced by later Supreme Court authority.

Conclusion: There was no transfer of the licence within rule 19(1), and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether section 15 of the excise law makes the partnership illegal because non-licensee partners participate in the business.

Analysis: Section 15 prohibits sale or purchase of intoxicants except under authority of a licence, but it does not require that every participant in the business must hold a separate licence, nor does it expressly prohibit a partnership of the kind in question. The Court construed the partnership as one intended to operate in conformity with the licence, with the licensee-partner remaining responsible for the licensed activity.

Conclusion: Section 15 did not render the partnership illegal, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether failure to obtain previous permission for introducing or excluding partners under rule 19(2) renders the partnership illegal.

Analysis: Rule 19(2) requires prior permission when a jointly granted licence is affected by the inclusion or exclusion of partners, but the Court held that breach of that requirement, without an express provision making the partnership void, does not invalidate the partnership between the partners. At most, it exposes the parties to the statutory consequences contemplated by the excise law, while the partnership remains valid for income-tax purposes.

Conclusion: Non-compliance with rule 19(2) did not make the partnership illegal, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the partnership is void under section 23 of the Indian Contract Act on the ground of public policy.

Analysis: The Court held that the partnership agreement, properly construed, was intended to operate lawfully and did not require any act forbidden by law. The Court further held that later wrongful acts, if any, in the conduct of business do not by themselves invalidate an otherwise lawful partnership, and no independent public policy bar was established.

Conclusion: Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act did not invalidate the partnership, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The partnerships were held to be valid and entitled to registration under the Income-tax Act, as no statutory prohibition or contractual illegality was made out.

Ratio Decidendi: A partnership formed by a licensee for carrying on a licensed business is not invalid merely because the licence stands in the name of one partner, unless the statute expressly prohibits such a partnership or makes non-compliance void; a breach that attracts only penal or regulatory consequences does not by itself render the partnership illegal for income-tax purposes.

---