https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168738 An FL-16 licence granted after a perceived vacancy was treated as only a provisional arrangement, not a permanent licence carrying an indefeasible right. When the earlier licence holder's cancellation was later found illegal and the licence restored, the appellant's licence came to an end by operation of law because its foundation had disappeared. In that situation, the termination was not a punitive cancellation of a subsisting licence, so Section 34 of the U.P. Excise Act was not attracted and no separate notice to the appellant was required. en-us Fri, 11 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 May 2015 10:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168738 An FL-16 licence granted after a perceived vacancy was treated as only a provisional arrangement, not a permanent licence carrying an indefeasible right. When the earlier licence holder's cancellation was later found illegal and the licence restored, the appellant's licence came to an end by operation of law because its foundation had disappeared. In that situation, the termination was not a punitive cancellation of a subsisting licence, so Section 34 of the U.P. Excise Act was not attracted and no separate notice to the appellant was required. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 11 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168738