Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (8) TMI 946

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ement to pay proportionate annual rental for the year 1999-2000, instead of full annual fee of 13 lakhs which was applicable for that year in respect of an FL3 licence granted to her. 2. The Division Bench took note of Rule 14 of the Foreign Liquor Rules which reads thus: "If any of the licences referred to in Rule 13 is granted in the course of a financial year, the full annual fee shall be paid and the licence shall expire at the end of the financial year". On the reading of the said Rule, the Division Bench opined that it was not permissible for any licensee to claim only proportionate payment on the predication that it had been disabled from utilizing the licence for the full period because of third party intervention. Accepting the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... third party filed a suit in which the Munsif Court, Trivandrum granted an interim injunction restraining the Excise Commissioner from issuing the said licence to the Appellant for user at her said Hotel. This suit, along with another suit similar to it, was eventually dismissed on 29.9.1993. In an ensuing Appeal, the District Judge granted an ad interim injunction on 15.4.1994, which came to be vacated on 3.6.1994. On 23.11.1994, the Respondent rejected the Appellant's application for the FL3 licence due to an amendment to the Foreign Liquor Rules which had resulted in private parties being ineligible for FL3 licences. Consequently, the Appellant filed O.P. no. 18145 of 1994, which was allowed by the Single Judge. Acting in accordance with .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ailing in that case, that the Department could not interfere with the utilization of the FL3 licence, provided that the licensee complied with all other conditions as well as "payment of annual rental proportionately". It is therefore clear that Rule 14 would not impede or inhibit the charging of annual proportionate fee so long as no failure is placed on the licensee or it is blameworthy itself. We must be quick to clarify that in the event that a party applies for a period which is obviously not effective for the entire financial year, such as applying for a licence mid-way that financial year, the full fee for that year may be claimable or chargeable and, therefore, would have to be paid. In other words, had the Appellant applied for the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... st thereon at the rate of six per cent per annum with effect from 11.8.2005. Failure to do so shall render the Respondent State liable to refund the aforementioned sum of 9,41,257/- together with interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum calculated from 11.8.2005 till the date of payment and also additionally liable for payment of costs quantified at 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only). Civil Appeal No. 4900 of 2006 7. The facts that arise in this Appeal are somewhat complex in comparison to Chitra's foregoing Appeal. The Appellant had been granted an FL3 licence for its Hotel Hackoba at Ernakulam for the period ending on 31.3.2001. Due to a dispute with its landlord it had to vacate its premises; and on locating to another, i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce year, nevertheless the Appellant was liable to pay the full fee for the year 2002-2003. It is these circumstances which have constrained the Appellant to file the present Appeal before us. 8. In order to eradicate any possibility of misunderstanding our present Judgment, we hasten to clarify that had the Appellant's application for renewal of the FL-3 licence found approval instead of rejection on 4.9.2002, the Appellant would have been liable to pay the entire fee for the year 2001-2002. This is so for the simple reason that there was no third party interference or intervention which led to the non-utilization of that licence for the previous portion of that year; it may be reiterated that the Appellant had to locate fresh premises. Ho .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates