Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1983 (9) TMI 322

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1983 relates to the auction of the exclusive privilege of selling country liquor in shops in Bulandshahr District. The questions raised in all these appeals are the very questions decided by us in Civil Appeal No. 5997 of 1983. However, Shri S.S. Ray, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, Manminder Singh, in Civil Appeal No. 6217 of 1983, made a valiant effort to pursuade us to dismiss the appeal. He submitted to us that we would have taken a different view of the facts in the earlier case, had it been brought to our notice that the Excise Commissioner had himself, on 24-3-1983 declined to order re-auction of the country liquor shops of Chail group, when requested to do so by Ghanshyam Das Jaiswal. The same Excise Commissioner, just....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his interference was called for. Shri Ray also suggested that the Deputy Commissioner of Excise had no statutory function to perform, that he was no more than a busy-body and therefore the Excise Commissioner should not have acted upon his report. We see no force whatever in this submission. The Deputy Commissioner of Excise was an officer of the Department in-charge of the District and he was certainly interested in securing the maximum revenue to the State. If as an officer of the Department interested in securing the maximum revenue to the State he submitted a comprehensive report to the Excise Commissioner, who was competent to take action in the matter, his action is to be commended and not criticised. We are unable to agree with any o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Shanti Kumar was prepared to offer a bid 40% higher than the highest bid at the auction already held. The Excise Commissioner was satisfied about bona fides of the offer of Shanti Kumar having regard to the deposit of ₹ 9,65,000/-made by Shanli Kumar which he offered could be forfeited, if the re-auction did not secure bids at least 40% higher than the highest bid in the previous auction. Whether Shanti Kumar was really prevented from entering the auction hall or not, the Excise Commissioner was satisfied about the bona fides of the offer made by him and therefore in the best interest of the revenue, he ordered a re-auction. Since the provisional acceptance of the Highest bid at the auction already held by the Collector was subject to....