https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194271 Cancellation of toddy licences under Rule 6(30) did not itself authorise forfeiture of the security deposit or automatic recovery of alleged loss, because the substituted rule omitted the earlier forfeiture consequence and that omission could not be supplied by interpretation. Rule 6(28) operated separately and could be used only for default in kist, tree-tax, duty or interest, subject to statutory limits, confirmation and proof of actual, specifically ascertained loss. The Court also stressed that penal recovery could not follow cancellation mechanically and had to comply with natural justice, including proper notice, a meaningful hearing and a non-prejudged decision. en-us Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Oct 2023 12:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194271 Cancellation of toddy licences under Rule 6(30) did not itself authorise forfeiture of the security deposit or automatic recovery of alleged loss, because the substituted rule omitted the earlier forfeiture consequence and that omission could not be supplied by interpretation. Rule 6(28) operated separately and could be used only for default in kist, tree-tax, duty or interest, subject to statutory limits, confirmation and proof of actual, specifically ascertained loss. The Court also stressed that penal recovery could not follow cancellation mechanically and had to comply with natural justice, including proper notice, a meaningful hearing and a non-prejudged decision. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194271