IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27830 of 2007(K)
1. C.K.BALAN, CHATTIYATTIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY THASILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY),
3. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :23/07/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 27830 OF 2007 K
====================
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The prayer sought in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P12, a notice
issued calling upon the petitioner to remit arrears of Rs.30,49,002/- along
with interest of Rs.13,14,225/-. Briefly stated, the petitioner. was the
licencee of toddy shops in Kodungalloor Excise Range during the years
1994-97. On account of shortage of toddy in the Trichur District , he was
granted several permits and in so far as this writ petition is concerned, the
permits which are relevant are Exts. P10 and P11.
2. According to the petitioner, during the currency of the licence,
he had submitted Ext.P1 application for cancellation of the licence, but
however without passing orders thereon Ext.P2 recovery notice was issued
demanding payment of Rs.10,07,400/- from him. That was challenged
before this court in an original petition filed by him and that case was
disposed of relegating the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy of
appeal before the departmental authorities.
3. Against Ext.P3, petitioner filed an appeal before the
Government and that was rejected by Ext.P4. A review of Ext.P4
WPC 27830/07
:2 :
attempted by the petitioner was also rejected by Ext.P5. Thereupon, the
petitioner approached this court by filing OP No.16502/01 challenging the
demand against him as confirmed by the appellate authorities. In that
Original petition, Ext.P6 counter affidavit was filed indicating the liability of
the petitioner. However, that OP was dismissed by Ext.P7 judgment
following Ext.P8 judgment of the Division Bench in WA 605/97. Against
Ext.P7, petitioner filed writ appeal No.1921/05 and that was dismissed by
Ext.P9 judgment. Thereafter he sought review of Ext.P9 by filing RP
117/07 and the review was considered and by Ext.P13 order, the same
was dismissed. However, dealing with the contention of the petitioner that
by Ext.P12 demand issued for realisation of the dues from him, more
amount than what was mentioned in Ext.P2 was sought to be recovered,
the Division Bench held that the remedy of the petitioner is to challenge
the fresh demand as not in accordance with the earlier demand, which was
confirmed by this court in Exts. P7 and P9. It is thereupon that this writ
petition is filed.
4. Counsel for the petitioner contends that now liability that is
now sought to be enforced against the petitioner is as indicated in
Annexure R1(a), which is enclosed to the statement filed by the 1st
respondent in this case. In Annexure R1(a), in so far as Ext.P10 permit is
WPC 27830/07
:3 :
concerned, his liability is indicated as Rs.2,70,000/-. It is stated that this
quantification is on the basis that the permit authorised him to transport
1500 litres toddy for 180 days. Similarly, counsel points out that in so far
as Ext.P11 permit is concerned, the liability indicated is Rs.3,65,400/- on
the basis that the permit authorised him to transport 2100 litres of toddy
for 174 days.
5. Referring to Ext.P10, it is submitted that the said permit was
issued only on 3/10/96 and that it was valid only till 31/10/96, authorising
the petitioner to transport 1500 litres on each of those days. Counsel
submits that while in Annexure R1(a) it is mentioned that the permit
authorised him to transport toddy on 180 days, in effect the permit only
authorised him to transport toddy during the period 3/10/96 to 31/10/96
that is 28 days. Similarly, in so far as Ext.P11 permit is concerned, it is
stated that the permit was issued on 9/10/96 and was valid only till
31/10/96. As against this, counsel points out that in Annexure R1(a), it is
stated that the petitioner was authorised to transport toddy for 174 days.
These permits, it is submitted were issued in terms of Section 11 of the
Abkari Act, which interalia provides that such permits shall be either
general or for definite periods.
6. Though a statement has been filed by the 1st respondent as
WPC 27830/07
:4 :
stated above, there is absolutely no explanation forthcoming nor is the
contradiction in the number of days indicated in Exts. P10 and P11 on the
one side and Annexure R1(a) on the other explained in any manner. Going
by Exts. P10 and P11, I should accept the plea of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the authorisation was confined to 28 days and 22 days
alone. However, the learned Government Pleader has made available
before me the register of Inter District Permits maintained by the
respondents during the year 1996-97. In so far as Ext.P10 is concerned, it
is mentioned in the said register that pursuant to the order passed by this
court, in CMP 28733/96 in OP No.16083/96, the validity of the permit was
extended upto 31/3/97. Similarly, in so far as Ext.P11 is concerned, it is
mentioned in the register that pursuant to the order in CMP
No.29611/1996 in OP 16511/96, the validity of the permit was extended
upto 31/3/97. The learned Government Pleader has also made available
before me the interim order in OP 16083/96 from which it is seen that the
petitioner herein was the 5th petitioner and this court passed an order
dated 14th of October 1996 directing the Assistant Excise Commissioner,
Palakkad to issue toddy transport permit to the petitioner for the period
upto 31/3/1997 without insisting on additional tax. It is stated that similar
order was passed in so far as OP 16083/96, in which again the petitioner
WPC 27830/07
:5 :
was the 5th petitioner. It is now seen that by a common judgment
rendered on 19th of March, 1997, a batch of original petitions including the
aforesaid two original petitions were dismissed by this court.
7. From the facts as noticed above, it is therefore clear that
though the original period of Exts. P10 and P11 permits was 28 days and
22 days respectively as contended by the petitioner, pursuant to the
interim orders passed by this court in Original petitions filed by the
contractors including the petitioner, the period of the permits were
extended till 31/3/97 and this fact has not been disclosed by the petitioner.
If that be so, the quantification done by the respondents in Annexure R1
(a), the details of which has been extracted in the earlier part of this
judgment cannot be said to be incorrect for any reason. Therefore, the
proceedings impugned in this writ petition are liable to be upheld and I do
so.
The writ petition merits only to be dismissed and I do so.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp