|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 1262 Records
-
2015 (6) TMI 1109 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Recovery - Duty drawback - recovery on the ground that applicant failed to produce the evidence for realization of export proceeds in respect of impugned exported goods for which they were allowed drawback within the period allowed - Held that: - it is a statutory requirement u/s 75(1) of Customs Act, 1962 & Rule 16A(1) of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995, read with Section 8 of FEMA, 1999 read with Regulations 9 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export of goods & Services) Regulations, 2000 & Para 2.41 of EXIM Policy 2005-2009 that export proceeds need to be realized within the time limit provided there under in this case subject to any extension allowed by RBI - the date of realization of export proceeds was not mentioned in Bank Realization Certificate submitted by the applicant. In absence of mention of date of realization of export proceeds, it cannot be concluded that realization of export proceeds were made by the applicant and were made within stipulated time limit including extension, if any, allowed by the RBI.
The applicants are liable to pay drawback availed by them for the reasons of failure to realize export proceeds within stipulated time limit - revision application rejected - decided against applicant.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1108 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Duty drawback - recovery of sanctioned drawback - recovery on the ground that applicant failed to produce the evidence for realization of export proceeds in respect of impugned exported goods for which they were allowed drawback within the period allowed - Held that: - it is a statutory requirement under Section 75(1) of Customs Act, 1962 & Rule 16A(1) of Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995, read with Section 8 of FEMA, 1999 read with Regulations 9 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods & Services) Regulations, 2000 & Para 2.41 of EXIM policy 2005-2009 that export proceeds need to be realized within the time limit provided thereunder viz six months in this case subject to any extension allowed by RBI - the applicant failed to produce Bank Realization Certificates even after 11 years from the date of exports - the drawback availed by the applicant is liable for recovery - revision rejected - decided against Applicant.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1107 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Valuation - Spandex yarn imported in the year 2005 - enhancement in value - rejection of declared value purely on the grounds that the importer did not produce any evidence - Held that: - the Appellate Authority has discussed the issue in detail and after examining the documents and L.C, concluded that the declared price is correct and is to be taken as the transaction value and also clearly brought out that the same importer’s similar consignment has been accepted by the department and also compared with the quantity of the yarn imported in the present consignment and compared to the quantity of the goods relied by the Revenue - the declared price be accepted as the transaction value - appeal of revenue dismissed.
Refund claim - unjust enrichment - Held that: - the appellant has been able to establish that the duty incidence has not been passed on to the customers and their claim is not hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. The appellant has produced all the relevant documents i.e., C.A. Certificate, balance sheet, challans, but the same were not considered - On perusal of the balance sheet for the financial year ending 31-3-2006, we find that during the relevant period, the excess duty paid by the appellant has been absorbed by them and shown by them as receivables from the department, which is duly supported by the Chartered Accountant’s Certificate dated 19-12-2005 - the appellant has not passed on the enhanced duty and it is a fact that the spandex yarn was consumed in their factory for manufacture of final product - the appellant is entitled for the consequential refund arising out of the Order-in-Appeal dated 30-9-2005 and the refund is not hit by unjust enrichment - decided in favor of assessee.
Appeal disposed off - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1106 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Revocation of CHA licence - forfeiture of security deposit - overvalued consignment of scarves, was being attempted to be exported from D’Node CFS - the 4 Shipping Bills dated 15-3-2012 of the exporter namely M/s. Galaxy Export, New Delhi were amended by filing four more Shipping Bills showing lesser FOB value and consequently lesser drawback - Held that: - The regulations mandate that the CHA should verify the antecedents of the exporter, the identity and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable independent and authentic information. This was not done by the appellant. In fact the appellant had simply obtained the export documents from Shri Deepak Joshi who had received the same from Shri Kunal who was not an authorized representative of the exporter. In this view of the matter, we find that the violation of Regulation 13(o) is established.
Regarding violation of Regulation 19(8), it is seen that Shri Sanjay Gawand signed the request letter for amendment of Shipping Bills despite being a temporary pass holder of the CHA, who is not authorized to sign such documents. The CHA admits that this happened due to inadvertence. Therefore violation of Regulation 19(8) is established in that the CHA exercised no control in ensuring that his employees do not make any omissions or commissions in violation of the Regulations. Rather the presence of Shri Deepak Joshi everywhere does indicate that the CHA was getting some work done through unauthorized people.
We note the elements of negligence and total disregard to Regulations 13(o) & 19(8). It would meet the ends of justice if the revocation of license is continued till 31-12-2015.
The continuation of revocation till 31-12-2015. However, the license is ordered to be made operative from 1-1-2016. The security deposit is also ordered to be forfeited - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1105 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
CENVAT credit - extension of capacity of production - whether the appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on capital goods procured during the period when their product was dutiable or not? - Held that: - The relevant date for deciding the credit eligibility is date of procurement of capital goods. Admittedly, on the date when capital goods were procured their final product was dutiable - As on the date on which the capital goods were procured, the final product was dutiable, therefore,the appellant has correctly taken the Cenvat credit on capital goods and they are not required to reverse the same - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1104 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Provisional Orders of Attachment - Held that:- As referring to extract Section 2(na) of PMLA “investigation” includes all the proceedings under this Act and the impugned Provisional Orders of Attachment have been passed in exercise of powers under Section 5(1) of PMLA. Therefore, the proceeding under Section 5(1) of PMLA also comes under the definition of “investigation”. As per the above said interim order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India [2013 (4) TMI 847 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ], this Court shall not pass any order, which may, in any manner, impede the investigation being carried out by the Directorate of Enforcement.Therefore, this Court accepts the first preliminary objection raised by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India.
So far as the second preliminary issue is concerned, this Court is not inclined to go into the same for the reason that the writ petitions cannot be entertained by this Court and hence, it cannot give any findings whether the impugned orders are sustainable in law or petitioners have to avail the alternate remedy available under the PMLA.
Therefore, this Court holds that the writ petitions are not maintainable before this Court and they are dismissed. The petitioners, if so advised, are at liberty to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India for redressal of their grievance. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1103 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Sale - whether removal of Beedi leaves from the forest under the trade permit granted under the A.P. Minor Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade in Abnus Leaves) Rules, would amount to sale and attracts liability of payment of Sales Tax?
Held that: - by judgment in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Division, Khammam District [2014 (12) TMI 998 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], Court had specifically posed a question in relation to the Bamboo, whether removal of forest produce would amount to sale. This Court held that there is no sale involved - the question is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue - revision application dismissed.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1102 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Restoration of petition - Natural justice - opportunity of personal hearing u/s 22(4) of the TNVAT Act? - Held that: - on the limited score that the impugned orders have been passed in utter violation of Section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act, which contemplates an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, this Court without going into the merits of the matter, setting aside the impugned orders, remand the cases back to the file of the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners - petition allowed.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1101 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Rectification application u/s 37 - carpet - exemption from tax - unaccounted stock of carpet - An application u/s 37 was moved prima facie on the plea that order u/s 72(3) of compounding the case was not proper and that a mistake apparent on the face of record has crept in and it needs rectification - Whether the carpets manufactured by the petitioner are not exempt from tax as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Ess Dee Carpet Enterprises v. Union of India [1989 (12) TMI 353 - SUPREME COURT] decided on December 7, 1989? - Held that: - rectification implies the correction of an error or removal of defects or imperfections and could not be used to appreciate the evidence of new facts which were not placed earlier. Rectification implies an error, mistake or defect which after rectification is made right.
The order dated August 16, 1997 attained finality and at least there was no mistake apparent under section 37 in the order dated August 16, 1997 which needed rectification and this was rightly rejected by the assessing officer. The assessee in the garb of application under section 37 in fact wanted review of the order which is impermissible.
Reliance was placed upon the judgment rendered in the case of Ess Dee Carpet Enterprises v. Union of India [1989 (12) TMI 353 - SUPREME COURT] which in my view, is distinguishable, and even does not touch upon the controversy in hand, inasmuch as in that case, the honourable apex court was considering matter relating to the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provision Act - Even the said judgment only speaks of textile and how carpet comes within the definition of "textile" has even not been pointed out by the counsel for the assessee during the course of arguments. Merely mentioning that carpet is a textile and is exempt, does not bear out either from the record or from the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.
Once the excess stock was found, admitted by the assessee an application for composition (compounding) having been moved which was accepted and attained finality, no mistake has been noticed at least in the order passed on August 16, 1997 which in my view, has rightly been rejected by the assessing officer and accordingly the present petition fails - decided against the Assessee.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1100 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Interest accrued on non performing assets - Applicability of section 43D - Held that:- The perusal of section 43D clearly shows that it applies only to the Scheduled Banks and this fact was admitted by Ld. Counsel also that the same applies only in case of Financial institution or Scheduled Bank. Admittedly, the assessee is not a Scheduled Bank and, therefore, the provisions of section 43D were not applicable. In the case of ACIT v Punjab State Cooperative Bank Ltd. (2013 (8) TMI 476 - ITAT CHANDIGARH ), the relief was granted mainly on the basis of section 43D and, therefore, that decision could not have been relied on for dismissing the Revenue’s appeal in the present case.
In our opinion, the Tribunal has inadvertently not noticed that decision of ACIT v Punjab State Cooperative Bank Ltd (supra) was rendered because of provisions of section 43D. Therefore, clearly an error has crept into the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we recall the order for the purpose of re-adjudication of only one issue i.e regarding relief granted by CIT(A) against interest in respect of non- performing loans which has been raised through ground No.1 by the Revenue
-
2015 (6) TMI 1099 - ITAT MUMBAI
Depreciation claim on assets of trust already been claimed as application of income u/s. 11 - Held that:- In the earlier years identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal. We find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court had also decided the issue in favour of the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08 wherein as directed to allow depreciation claimed by the appellant. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (6) TMI 1098 - ITAT NAGPUR
Entitlement for interest on NPA as provided under section 43D - whether interest on accrual basis in respect of non performing assets (NPA) of a cooperative bank are to be taxed or not? - Held that:- We may like to refer the decision of Karnavati Co-op Bank Ltd. (2011 (11) TMI 367 - ITAT AHMEDABAD ) wherein the issue was identical and as held that in a situation when the assessee is a Cooperative bank, however, governed by RBI guide lines then the provisions of section 43D is to be applied. Even the ITAT, Pune Bench in the case of Omerga Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. [2014 (12) TMI 355 - ITAT PUNE ] has held that the assessee, a Cooperative bank, operating under the license from RBI and governed by the Circulars of Reserve Bank of India is entitled for relief. On the basis of those circulars, the said Cooperative Bank had not accounted for the interest income of NPA. It was held that interest income relatable to NPA was not includible on accrual basis since the interest income had not accrued to the assessee in that period.
Both the Tribunals have also discussed a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court pronounced in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. (2010 (1) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ) as expressed that in essence RBI directions were prudential norms issued which deals essentially in respect of recognition of income. The guidelines were in respect of NBFCS to disclose the amount of NPA in their financial accounts. By virtue of section 45Q an overriding effect is given to said directions vis-a-vis principles of income recognition. The Hon’ble Court has observed that the accounting policies adopted by NBFC cannot determine the taxability of income. It was held that the Assessing Officer has to consider the directions of Reserve Bank of India as per section 45Q of Reserve Bank of India Act and examine the issue as per the prudential norms issued by RBI in connection with the income recognition of a bank. The Court has also commented that in such a situation the provisions of section 145 had no role to play.
We, therefore, hold that the decisions as cited before us squarely cover the issue in favour of the assessee.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1097 - ITAT MUMBAI
Computation of disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r.8D. - exclusion of investment made in the group concerns seeked - Held that:- As per the audited balance-sheet, the assessee has made substantial investment in group concern as a strategic investment. As per the decision of coordinate bench in M/s Smart Chip Ltd. [2014 (11) TMI 1068 - ITAT MUMBAI ] , strategic investment are required to be excluded from total investment while working out disallowance under Rule 8D.
Thus ground taken by the assessee in all the years for computing disallowance under rule 8D is restored back to the file of AO with a direction to recompute the same by excluding strategic investment made in the group concerns which is ₹ 11.30 crores in the A.Y.2009-10, ₹ 26.44 crores for A.Y.2008-09 and ₹ 11.30 crores in A.Y.2010-11, respectively. We direct accordingly.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1096 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Disallowance on account of losses due to earthquake - Held that:- In the instant case, no material has been brought before us to show that any receipt, which was received by the assessee in relation to the expenditure in question, was treated by the department as revenue receipt. Further, in the absence of any material or details brought before us to show that the expenditure was incurred only for repairing of building or asset, and not for construction of new building, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A), which is confirmed. The ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Disallowance of the expenditure being the provision made for employees cost of arrears payable upto 31st March, 2008 - Held that:- As the Gujarat Government accepted the 6th Pay Commission in December, 2008, and therefore, following the ratio laid down in the judgement in the case of CIT Vs. Kerala State Financial Enterprises, (2008 (2) TMI 383 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA) and CIT Vs. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. (2012 (9) TMI 515 - DELHI HIGH COURT ), disallowance made by the AO was deleted.- Decided in favour of assessee.
Excess depreciation claimed on account of capital grant - Held that:- The submissions of the assessee before us is that the uniform rate of 15% adopted by the CIT(A) is not justified. As per provisions of section 43(1) of the Act, the capital grant should be reduced from the cost/WDV of the relevant asset, and thereafter the depreciation is to be calculated. Thus, the capital grant receipt in respect of asset, on which depreciation is allowable at the rate different from 15% should be worked out as per the applicable rate. The DR could not point out any mistake in the above submission of the assessee, which we find is in accordance with law. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the lower authorities on this issue, and restore the matter back to the file of the AO for adjudication afresh
MAT - Enhancement of book profit computed under section 115JB - liability towards arrear payable to the employees pending decision of the 6th Pay Commission - Held that:- We find that the Tribunal in the case of assessee itself in the Asstt.Year 2006-07 and 2007-08, while deciding similar issue held that enhancement and reduction u/s 115J is limited only to the specific items provided under clauses (a) to (i) and (i) to (viii). The AO has only to satisfy himself that the provisions of the Companies Act have been complied with while preparing the accounts.he assessee has complied with the provisions contained in Schedule-VI to the Companies Act read with Schedule-XIY and Circular dt. 7.3.2009 of the Department of Company Affairs. Hence the AO's action in reducing the amount is held to be unjustified. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Disallowance of claim of guarantee fees paid to Government of Gujarat - Held that:- CIT(A) correctly observed that guarantee fee was an annual recurring expenditure incurred by the assessee. Guarantee fee was payable to Govt. of Gujarat every year in respect of loans taken by the assessee and guaranteed by the Govt. of Gujarat. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Ltd. (1965 (12) TMI 22 - SUPREME Court ), loan cannot be treated as asset or advantage resulting in enduring benefits. Guarantee fees paid to Govt. of Gujarat was in connection with raising of loans and enduring benefit or advantage could not be said to have resulted by taking such loans. Only if the assets acquired out of such loans were not put-to-use till the end of previous year i.e. 31.3.2008, the guarantee fees to such extent i.e. in respect of such loans only could be capitalized as cost of such asset. The assessee has certified that no new project was started or commissioned during the year for which above guarantee was paid, and the guarantee fees was in respect of loans for acquisition of capital assets, which were already put-to-use prior to 1.4.2007. The guarantee fees of ₹ 5,69,35,000/- is directed to be allowed as revenue expenditure, subject to verification by the AO of the certificate filed during the appellate proceedings i.e. there was no capital work-in-progress in respect of loans on which guarantee fees was paid.
Disallowance of loss of material through pilferage, shortage of material-in-transit, shortage arising on physical verification etc. - CIT(A) deleted the addition and held that similar issue was decided by the CIT(A) in favour of the assessee in assessee’s own case for the Asst.Year 2006-07 and 2007-08 - Held that:- The DR relied on the order of the AO. He could not bring any material on record to how that the relief allowed by the CIT(A) in the Asstt.Year 2006-07 and 2007-08 was appealed against before higher forums, and the order of the CIT(A) was varied by any higher authority. In the absence of any such material, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) on this issue, which is hereby confirmed and the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1095 - ITAT MUMBAI
TDS u/s 194H - non deduction of tds on payments of bank guarantee commission made to the bank - principal agent relationship - interest u/s 201(1A) - Held that:- TDS was not required to be deducted under section 194H, therefore, levy of interest under section 201(1A) was not in accordance with law. Since no contrary decision was brought to our notice, respectfully following the said decision of Tribunal in the case of Kotak Securities Ltd.(2012 (2) TMI 77 - ITAT MUMBAI )wherein held when bank issues bank guarantee on behalf of assessee, there is no principal agent relationship between bank and assessee and, therefore, assesee is not required to deduct tax at source under section 194H from payments of bank guarantee commission made to the bank, we decline to interfere in the relief granted by Ld. CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1094 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Confirmation of addition made on account of bogus purchases - Held that:- The settled position of law with regard to any expenditure claimed to have been incurred by the assessee, the onus is on the assessee to prove that such expenditure was for the business purpose. In the case in hand, the assessee has claimed certain purchases, however, the assessee has not placed any corroborative details of the raw-material so purchased. Moreover, the purchases so made from the parties could not be verified by the AO. The AO has made efforts by sending letters to the given address, but the letters so sent and the information as sought by the AO was not furnished by the assessee or the parties concerned. - Decided against assessee
Claim of higher remuneration payable to partners as per section 40(b)(v)(2) - Held that:- Admittedly, the assessee has not made the claim in the original return in respect of the higher remuneration payable to the partners. The assessee has not revised its return and no correction has been made in the account. We find that the ld.CIT(A) has rejected the ground on the basis that the ground has been raised as an afterthought to negate the tax made by the AO. Therefore, the assessee cannot blow hot and cold, therefore, we do not see any infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld - Decided against assessee
Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - addition of account of bogus purchases - Held that:- The assessee has also placed on record the confirmations by the concerned parties. The AO made addition on the basis that the assessee failed to produce the parties. However, other details in the nature of PANs and confirmations of concerned parties were furnished. Under these facts, we are unable to accept the argument of Revenue, since the AO has not made further enquiry to verify the correctness of confirmations. It is settled law that the quantum proceedings and the penalty proceedings are two separate proceedings. Even if addition is sustained, it is not necessary that penalty would automatically be sustained. If the assessee is able to demonstrate that under the given facts, penalty should not be sustained in the light of judicial pronouncements and the statutory provisions. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (6) TMI 1093 - ITAT CHENNAI
Deduction us/ 80- IA - Held that:- From the facts of the case it appears that the Ld. Assessing Officer was of the view that since the Revenue was on appeal against the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills P. Ltd [2010 (3) TMI 860 - Madras High Court] before the Hon’ble Apex Court, he need not follow that decision. He did not realize that mere pendency of the SLP before the Apex Court is not a valid ground for not following the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court. Further, it is not the case of the Revenue that the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills P. Ltd (surpa) is stayed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is pertinent to mention that in the absence of any stay granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court against the operation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court, all the lower judiciaries as well as quasi judicial authorities are bound to follow the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. Since the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly followed the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Madras High Court(supra) and held the issue in favour of the assessee, we do not find it necessary to interfere with his order . Therefore we hereby confirm the order of the Ld. Ld. CIT (A).
-
2015 (6) TMI 1092 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Withdrawal of application - Held that:- Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate for Mr.Bhunesh Rupera, learned advocate for applicant states that under the instructions of his client, he wants to withdraw the present Criminal Misc. Application. He further states that applicants may be permitted to appear before the lower Court.
Permission, as prayed for, is granted. The applicants are permitted to appear before the lower Court. Present application stands disposed of as withdrawn.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1091 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Denial of benefit of Cenvat credit - outdoor catering services - services provided in the factory for employees of the factory - whether the assessee can utilise the cenvat credit facilities in respect of outdoor catering services, provided in the factory for its employees and outward freight service as input service? - Held that: - In an identical circumstance, this Court dealt with the issue with regard to outdoor catering service, in the case of CCE V. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], where it was held that all services used in relation to the business of manufacturing the final product are covered under the definition of `input service' and in the present case, the outdoor catering services being integrally connected with the business of the manufacture of cement, credit of service tax paid out on catering services has been rightly allowed by the Tribunal.
Outward freight charges - whether the services availed by a manufacturer for outward transportation of final products from the place of removal should be treated as an input service in terms of Rule 2 (1) (ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004? - Held that: - reliance placed on the decision of the case of CCE V. ABB Ltd., Bangalore [2011 (3) TMI 248 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], where it was held that By notification No.10/2008-C.E.(N.T.) dated 1.3.2008, the words 'clearance of final products upto the place of removal' were substituted in the place of the words 'clearance of final products from the place of removal'. The intention of the legislature is thus manifest. Till such amendment, the words 'clearance from the place of removal' included transportation charges from the place of removal till it reached the destination, namely the customer. Therefore, the said input service was included in the early part of the definition 2(1)(ii). – Credit of service tax paid on outward transportation allowed prior to 1.4.2008.
Appeal disposed off - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1090 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Conditions for grant of license - power of the State Government granting licenses - Held that:- It is only the State Government which is empowered to prescribe conditions for grant of license by framing Rules and respondent No.1 is only empowered to issue license subject to such conditions as prescribed by the State Government. No provision under the Act or the Rules is brought to the notice of this Court under which this power of the State Government is delegated to respondent No.1. In the absence of such delegation, respondent No.1 has no power or jurisdiction to impose any condition other than the one, which is prescribed under Schedule III to the Rules. At best, respondent No.1 can only request the State Government to appropriately amend the Rules and the Schedule for deletion of the word Corporation from the name of the business establishments of the licensees.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned proceedings issued by respondent Nos.1 and 3 are held as wholly without jurisdiction and they are accordingly quashed.
............
|
