<?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>2017 (1) TMI 190 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337110</link>
    <description>Renewal of a bar licence may be refused where the applicant fails to produce the original lease deed and related documents needed to verify the genuineness of the tenancy arrangement. Applying Rules 6 and 9-A of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005, the authority treated the existence of two lease agreements with differing renewal clauses as creating a bona fide doubt requiring documentary verification. The rejection of renewal was therefore upheld. However, the applicant was permitted to submit the relevant material, and the competent authority was required to give both the applicant and the premises owner a personal hearing before taking a fresh decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2017 16:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=453998" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 190 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337110</link>
      <description>Renewal of a bar licence may be refused where the applicant fails to produce the original lease deed and related documents needed to verify the genuineness of the tenancy arrangement. Applying Rules 6 and 9-A of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005, the authority treated the existence of two lease agreements with differing renewal clauses as creating a bona fide doubt requiring documentary verification. The rejection of renewal was therefore upheld. However, the applicant was permitted to submit the relevant material, and the competent authority was required to give both the applicant and the premises owner a personal hearing before taking a fresh decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337110</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>