Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.37 seconds)Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950
A.P. Bankers & Pawn Brokers Association vs Municipal Corporation Of Hyderabad on 2 March, 2001
In A.P. Bankers and Pawn Brokers Association v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, it was further held:
Shroff & Co., Etc vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 12 August, 1988
15. The learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities placed reliance on Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab (supra), Nagar Mahapalika, Bare illy v. State of U.P (supra), and Shroff and Co. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (supra), in support of the contention that it is permissible for the Municipality to impose trade licence fee on liquor trade. This Court is of the considered opinion that these three authorities do not in any manner help the learned Counsel for Municipalities. The first case herein deals with the tax on liquor bottles imposed by the Government of Punjab in accordance with the notification issued by the Government under Section 90(4) of the Punjab Municipalities Act, 1976. The said provision specifically enables the Government to impose tax, and accordingly the Government directed to collect a tax of Rs. 1/- per bottle sold through liquor shops. The second case concerns octroi duty and the third case deals with entry duty imposed on import of liquor in Bombay.
Khoday Distilleries Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 19 October, 1994
20. Even assuming that the trade in liquor is dangerous and offensive trade for the purpose of Section 521(1)(e)(ii) of HMC Act, when once the State, which has exclusive privilege in dealing with intoxicating drinks, parts its privilege by giving a licence subject to certain conditions, it must be presumed that the regulatory regime under Excise Laws takes care of the dangerous and offensive nature of the trade and there is nothing that the Municipality or the Municipal Corporation can do it by insisting upon a trade licence. As held by the Supreme Court in Khoday Distilleries Limited v. State of Karnataka (supra), the restrictions placed on the trade by the conditions of licence either with regard to stock liquor to be stored, restrictions on the sale of liquor, etc., are also intended to prevent abuse or diversion for use.
Avinder Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab & Anr. Etc on 19 September, 1978
Indeed, the case from Punjab (supra) supports the view taken by this Court that unless and until, the legislature specifically confers power on the Municipal Council/Municipal Corporations, they cannot impose any trade licence fee on any trade they like. It must not be forgotten that Municipal Council/Corporation is creation of statute and it shall have to act in accordance with the statute and not beyond consigned powers.
Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965
Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968
Nagar Mahapalika Bareilly vs State Of U.P. & Others on 2 February, 1988
15. The learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities placed reliance on Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab (supra), Nagar Mahapalika, Bare illy v. State of U.P (supra), and Shroff and Co. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (supra), in support of the contention that it is permissible for the Municipality to impose trade licence fee on liquor trade. This Court is of the considered opinion that these three authorities do not in any manner help the learned Counsel for Municipalities. The first case herein deals with the tax on liquor bottles imposed by the Government of Punjab in accordance with the notification issued by the Government under Section 90(4) of the Punjab Municipalities Act, 1976. The said provision specifically enables the Government to impose tax, and accordingly the Government directed to collect a tax of Rs. 1/- per bottle sold through liquor shops. The second case concerns octroi duty and the third case deals with entry duty imposed on import of liquor in Bombay.