<?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>2008 (11) TMI 730 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280134</link>
    <description>Under the Bihar Excise (Settlement of Licences for retail sale of country/spiced country liquor) Rules, 2004, acceptance of the highest bid does not itself create a licence; the bid remains subject to approval by the Excise Commissioner, and the licence issues only after such approval. Where settlement occurs in the midst of the excise year, Rule 24 was read to make the licence commence from the date of settlement, treated here as the date of Commissioner approval. Until the licence was issued, the State had not parted with its exclusive privilege, so licence fee could not be charged for the earlier period. The demand was therefore held unjustified and unenforceable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2019 17:47:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=567912" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 730 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280134</link>
      <description>Under the Bihar Excise (Settlement of Licences for retail sale of country/spiced country liquor) Rules, 2004, acceptance of the highest bid does not itself create a licence; the bid remains subject to approval by the Excise Commissioner, and the licence issues only after such approval. Where settlement occurs in the midst of the excise year, Rule 24 was read to make the licence commence from the date of settlement, treated here as the date of Commissioner approval. Until the licence was issued, the State had not parted with its exclusive privilege, so licence fee could not be charged for the earlier period. The demand was therefore held unjustified and unenforceable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280134</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>