https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285004 The Madras HC held that, in the context of excise licensing and shifting provisions, the term "place" must be read in its statutory setting and does not authorise relocation of a liquor licence from Mahe Region to Karaikal Region, as that would amount to movement to a wholly different region rather than shifting within the licensed locality. It also found that the licensing authority had complied with the requirement under Rule 122 to fix the maximum number of licences in the area with prior Government approval. The challenge on that ground failed, but the relocation orders were quashed and the shifting permission was set aside. en-us Thu, 14 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Dec 2019 18:14:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285004 The Madras HC held that, in the context of excise licensing and shifting provisions, the term "place" must be read in its statutory setting and does not authorise relocation of a liquor licence from Mahe Region to Karaikal Region, as that would amount to movement to a wholly different region rather than shifting within the licensed locality. It also found that the licensing authority had complied with the requirement under Rule 122 to fix the maximum number of licences in the area with prior Government approval. The challenge on that ground failed, but the relocation orders were quashed and the shifting permission was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 14 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285004