IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 291"" DAY OF OCTOBER 2005) PRESENT TI-IE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE v.o.sABHs£§ii'IT.'.'gf f r.- AND THE HONBLE MR JUSTICE ISIN;si.isryl:AN;iAiiifAi'A:\1A? Income Tax Appeal Ne. 536e~ef2006 I Between: 1. The Commissioner of Income I"-._ Khimjibhoi Commercial Clomplezg Opp. Civil Hospital I I 0 I' 'A I' Belgaum -- 590 001 V The . Of Income" " ' V. . .. Appellants (By Sri NI;VfSeshachalaIikidvocate) And: I » M s Laizsharni Liquor it Wholesale Agenicy Gokak, . " " .. Respondent (By Srii 'S . Parthasarathi, Advocate) This income tax appeal the substantial questions of law stated therein and etc. This appeal coming on for final hearing before Court this day, Sabhahit, J., delivered the following: A is filed L1/s 260-A of ":I.T".Act,I961 arising out of order dt. 25.10.2005 passed in .;lITA No.1 19/PANJ/2004 for the assessment year 20002001 praying that this I-¥on'ble Court may be pleased to formulate JUDGMENT
This appeal by the Revenue is filed being aggrieyed by
the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate .«_’Tri_bur1al,
Panaji Bench, Panaji in ETA No. 1 19/PANJ/2005.
Tribunal has dismissed the appeal__£i.l.ed’by jthe V’ »
appeal has been admitted for co’nsidering:’t_he
question of law as to whether; lease igrantedyehding,”
liquor in favour of a partner can used by the
2. The learned’ ]¢”c’:uns’_é1 ‘«tlie”‘appel1ant submitted
that the substantial question law ‘asV.’tol._yJhether the licence
granted for can be used by the partnership
firm by talking’ comprising of the person to
whporri licence” is given as a partner, is no longer res integra
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
:c«QM1v1:is«s’1oi$:sR or INCOME TAX vs. RANGILA RAM at
OTHE}f€’S reported in (2002) 254 {TR 230 SC wherein it has
iybpeeniicleiarly laid down in para 5 of the judgment as follows:
“S. The basic principle, as it seems to us,
is that the liquor business is res extra
commercium. No one may deal in liquor without
express permission. It is only the licensee who
is granted such permission. If he enters into a
«J;
partnership to deal in liquor, all the other
partners would, as partners, also be dealing in
liquor and holding the same. This would
contrary to the basic principle and illegal.”..~«~… f V. ” A’
Following the said decision, the substantialuduestionviof,
law is answered in favour of the Revenuiel, i”n_’thi’sv.appe.ali.
Accordingly, the order of the .Tribunal. _cionfirmiri-gtihe order ” ,
the Commissioner of IncorneiViVi”‘I.’_a§2. (Appeals)s’has:’;Eto be set
aside.
3. Lea_rner;l,,,foou;nsel for”=thei.’reS.£londent has filed a
memo’lithat’ ithfe is ready to deposit the tax which
had been ._refund.ed.g to pursuant to the order of the
Tribunal Cwithing weeks from today and he may be
perfnitited to urge’ ‘other grounds before the Commissioner of
‘ (Appeals) and the respondent may be permitted
to iConteind:’j_th5’e grounds other than the substantial question
of law that is already answered in favour of the Revenue in
A f_*~ ithisappeal, pertaining to allowance and in View of the memo
ii and the submission made by the learned counsel for the
V “appellant and the respondent that the tax amount would be
deposited within time granted by this Court, the Appeal
No.1/BGM/2003-2004 on the file of the Commissioner of
V
Income Tax (Appeals), Belgaum is restored to his file and it is
open to the respor1dent–assessee if the tax is deposited
within time granted by this Court, to contend
other than the substantial question of law
been answered in favour of the~”Revenue in ‘this Va-gopeial, i
pertaining to allowance which Tie available”
assessee. If the tax is not dep_osi_ted firithili. t’in’ie”granted ‘
by this Court, the respondent—–woti1d” forfeit ihisrigiht to raise
any contentions in theiappea1.__
j t Judge
Sdfm
Judge
%§mg/