Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.21 seconds)

Aman Jaiswal vs State Of M.P. on 22 July, 2020

order dated 04.06.2020 by the Division Bench has permitted to do so. During the pendency of the writ petition, the licence was cancelled and the shops were re-auctioned. The petitioner did not challenge the same by amending the said writ petition therefore, the issue of termination has come to an end which cannot be permitted to re-agitate in this petition. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that para.128 of writ petition no.7373/2020 (Maa Vaishno Enterprise and others Vs. State of M.P). And others is very clear and according to which only those licensee who was continuing with the licensee can submit a representation to claiming to seek the loss, waiver of duty and since the petitioner is not continuing with the licensee then clause 49 of the Excise Policy would not apply. Hence, the respondent has rightly written the letter dated 25.02.2021 for not entertaining any representation of the petitioner and another licensee who has surrendered their license. The recovery has rightly been initiated under Section 64 of the Excise Act and the petitions are liable to be dismissed.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 104 - Cited by 426 - S A Bobde - Full Document

Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 13 December, 2012

32. The petitioner has already submitted a claim before the District Committee/collector and thereafter report has already been sent to the Government, it ought to have been considered on merit and in between the State Government has wrongly written a letter dated 25.02.2021 to the Excise Commissioner that this clause 49 does not apply to the petitioner and in similarly situated petitioners whose license has been terminated/ cancelled by virtue of non-submission of willingness before the High Court. This wrong interpretation of para 128 of the writ petition No. 7373/2020 ( Maa Vaishno and others Vs. the State of M.P. And others) has unnecessarily increased the litigation in this High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 60 - Cited by 455 - S Kumar - Full Document
1   2 Next