<?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>2016 (4) TMI 974 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326860</link>
    <description>Preference under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 is ordinarily unavailable where an abkari crime is registered against a former licensee, but that disqualification may be treated as inoperative when the criminal proceedings and consequential licence action are under an operative judicial stay. On the facts discussed, the earlier cancellation of licence remained in abeyance and the licensee was allowed to continue till the end of the term, so statutory preference could not be denied solely on the crime registration. The administrative order granting preference and cancelling the rival provisional allotment was also not vitiated by non-application of mind, as the relevant objections were considered on remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2016 14:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=425681" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 974 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326860</link>
      <description>Preference under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 is ordinarily unavailable where an abkari crime is registered against a former licensee, but that disqualification may be treated as inoperative when the criminal proceedings and consequential licence action are under an operative judicial stay. On the facts discussed, the earlier cancellation of licence remained in abeyance and the licensee was allowed to continue till the end of the term, so statutory preference could not be denied solely on the crime registration. The administrative order granting preference and cancelling the rival provisional allotment was also not vitiated by non-application of mind, as the relevant objections were considered on remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326860</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>