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

1976 (3) TMI 255

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1st April, 1967, to 31st March, 1963 by the Government of kerala. The amounts at which the shops were knocked down were: 1. Shop no 1 = Rs. 84000/- 2. Shop no 4= Rs.46500/- 3. Shop no 8 = Rs.56100/- 4. Shop no 11 = Rs.150000- 2. The notified conditions of the auction sales made it incumbent upon the bidder to pay immediately 10% of the amount due and to provide personal security for the rest. There was no assurance or guarantee given there that prohibition will not be removed in future by the Government in any area in the State or about any other matter of future policy of the Government relating to intoxicants. According to notified conditions, the successful bidders had to deposit 30% of the total amount payable on demand b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion held that the notification in pursuance of which the shops in question were auctioned provided that, if the contract could not be executed, the whole amount was to be forfeited and the shop itself was to be resold. Thus, Don-execution of the contract due to the unwillingness or inability of a bidder to pay was not a contingency outside the notification for auction the validity of which is not challenged. The notification did not lay down that, in that case, the payment of the re minder will be remitted. On the other hand, the condition was that the whole amount due could, in such an event, be forfeited . 6. The Kerala High Court held that, despite the absence of a contract executed in accordance with the provisions of Article 299 of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bidder at an auction of the kind before us was the grantee of a privilege within the meaning of Section 28 of the Act, yet, it held that the liability to satisfy the dues arising oat of a bid was enforceable under Section 28 of the Act quite apart from any contractual liability. Reference was also made, in the connection, to the decision of this Court in Union of India v. A.L. Ralia Ram (3) for contending that the absence of a formal contract is not fatal in all cases so as to make the whole transaction null and void ab initio. 8. Statutory duties and liabilities may be enforced in accordance with statutory provisions. Equitable obligations may also arise and be enforced by decrees of Courts quite apart from the requirements of Article .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rivilege of selling liquor by retail may be granted on payment of rental in consideration of the grant. The appellants made all the initial payments of rent. We do not think that acquisition of the statute of a grantee, for the purposes of Section 18A, need await the actual receipt of a license. The conditions of the grant are to be laid down by the Government. The amount of rental may be settled by action, negotiation or by any other method as may be determined by the Government, from time to time. The amounts due may be collected to the exclusion of, or in addition to, the duty or tax leviable under Sections 17 and 18: 11. Section 18A(2) lays down that no grantee of any privilege under Sub-section (1) shall exercise the name until .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e was placed upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in K.P. Chowdhury v. State of M.P. [1966]3SCR919 and Mulamchand v. State of M.P. (1968) 2 S.C.W.R. 397, for the proposition that unless there is an agreement executed in accordance with the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution, the petitioners in the case where no agreement have been executed, would not be liable to pay rental. The argument was that the liability to pay rental arises only out of the agreement, and if there is no agreement then there is no liability to be enforced. As I have indicated the liability to pay the rental arises not only by virtue of the agreement but also by the provisions of Section 28 of the Act. The decision of the Supreme Court in K.P. Chowdhury v. .....

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