Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Ganapathi Versus The Excise Commissioner in Karnataka Bengaluru and Others

2018 (2) TMI 823 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Transfer of license in favor of partnership firm - manufacture of liquor - payment of the requisite transfer fees and damages for short lifting of liquor - Held that: - this Court is satisfied that the petitioner cannot lay a challenge to the transfer of licence in favour of the partnership firm in accordance with the partnership deed dated 1st April, 2002, even though such an application was filed by the said firm belatedly in the year 2013, since the respondent–firm undertook and paid the requ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

R4 ORDER The petitioner - Ganapathi, son of Ramachandra Desai, has filed this writ petition in this Court on 18-09-2015, aggrieved by the endorsement dated 11-06-2014 issued by the respondent - Deputy Commissioner of Excise, as also the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated 15-09-2015 - Annexure H , upholding the said endorsement. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.4 - Vasudev son of Ramachandra Desai, his younger brother, created a partnership firm in respect .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fer of the said CL-9 licence from that of the proprietorship of the present petitioner to the partnership of the firm and accordingly, the respondent - Deputy Commissioner of Excise passed the impugned order - Annexure D on 11-06-2014. On the said transfer application in favour of the partnership firm, upon payment of the requisite transfer fees and damages for short lifting of liquor in the past period under Rule 14(2) of the Rules. 3. Aggrieved by the said transfer of CL-9 licence, the petitio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is the one who brought the 4th respondent to Bangalore and made him to settle down in life. The truth is otherwise. The petitioner and the 4th respondent together were running several hotels in partnership. By the year 2002, the petitioner wanted the business of all other partnerships to be left to him to run them with his family members, in consideration of which the petitioner was agreed that the business of only M/s. Status Bar and Restaurant shall be given to the 4th respondent. However whe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the business of M/s. Status Bar and Restaurant was actually carried on by the 4th respondent and not by the petitioner. Clauses 13, 18 and 19 of the said Annexure A clearly reflect the intention of parties in entering into that arrangement. Even though this arrangement was entered into between the parties in the year 2002 itself, it took further 11 years for the petitioner to agree to submit application in Form 17-B for transfer of licence in the name of the firm, which he did by personally atte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version