SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(AP) 440

V.V.S.RAO
Shirdi Sal Wines – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government Of A. P. – Respondent


V. V. S. RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner applied for a licence in form IL-24 to establish a shop in Hyderabad for the year 2002-2003 pursuant to a notification issued by the second respondent on 8-4-2002. Whatever be the reason, by proceedings dated 10-7-2002, the first respondent accorded permission to establish a shop of IL-24 by the petitioner at Mulgi no. 13-1-9/1/2, New Bhoiguda Kaman, hyderabad. Consequent thereto, the second respondent issued a licence by proceedings dated 11-7-2002. The petitioner paid first instalment of licence fee at Rs. 4,10,000. 00 in accordance with Rule 25 (9) of the A. P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 ( the Rules ). In the month of August 2002, he also paid second instalment of rs. 4,10,000/ -. Contending that as he was granted licence in July 2002, he is liable to pay the proportionate licence fee from July 2002 onwards and not from April 2002 onwards, he filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to collect proportionate licence fee. In support of his contention, the petitioner also relies on the first proviso to sub-rule (9) of Rule 25 as amended by G. O. Ms. No. 283, Revenue (Excise-II) Department, dated 28-5-2002






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top