<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2013 (1) TMI 771 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175330</link>
    <description>In a regulated liquor settlement, the governing rules and licence conditions determine when liability to pay licence fee begins. Where a retail shop is settled in the midst of the excise year, Rule 24 treats the licence as commencing from the date of settlement, and the auction-purchaser remains liable from that date even if the licence is issued later. The required advance security also had to be deposited within the prescribed time. The doctrine of condonation by conduct was held inapplicable to liquor trade, since it is a regulated privilege and not an ordinary business right; a bidder who accepted the licence with full knowledge of the conditions could not avoid the statutory liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2015 22:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=405599" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (1) TMI 771 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175330</link>
      <description>In a regulated liquor settlement, the governing rules and licence conditions determine when liability to pay licence fee begins. Where a retail shop is settled in the midst of the excise year, Rule 24 treats the licence as commencing from the date of settlement, and the auction-purchaser remains liable from that date even if the licence is issued later. The required advance security also had to be deposited within the prescribed time. The doctrine of condonation by conduct was held inapplicable to liquor trade, since it is a regulated privilege and not an ordinary business right; a bidder who accepted the licence with full knowledge of the conditions could not avoid the statutory liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175330</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>