https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287511 Failure to comply with Rules 16 and 17 of the Karnataka Excise (Lease of Right of Retail Vend of Liquors) Rules, 1969 after provisional acceptance attracted Rule 18, under which the Government could cancel the confirmed disposal for non-compliance and forfeiture of the deposit followed as the statutory consequence of that cancellation. Rule 13(2) applied only where the initial provisional deposit itself was not made, so it did not govern this situation. Because forfeiture was not an independent discretionary step and the bidder had already been heard before cancellation, no separate hearing was required before forfeiture took effect. The challenge to forfeiture therefore failed. en-us Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Apr 2020 10:29:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287511 Failure to comply with Rules 16 and 17 of the Karnataka Excise (Lease of Right of Retail Vend of Liquors) Rules, 1969 after provisional acceptance attracted Rule 18, under which the Government could cancel the confirmed disposal for non-compliance and forfeiture of the deposit followed as the statutory consequence of that cancellation. Rule 13(2) applied only where the initial provisional deposit itself was not made, so it did not govern this situation. Because forfeiture was not an independent discretionary step and the bidder had already been heard before cancellation, no separate hearing was required before forfeiture took effect. The challenge to forfeiture therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287511