IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23521 of 2008(A)
1. GOPACHANDRAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
2. GEORGE KOCHUPARAMBIL ALIAS ANISH,
Vs
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJU JOSEPH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :07/08/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-----------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.23521/2008
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, along with two other persons were
abkari contractors, for running abkari shop Nos.1 to 88 in
Hosdurg Range during the abkari year 1989-90. It is stated
that, apart from the first petitioner, all other licensees have
expired. In so far as the second petitioner is concerned, he
is the grandson of one of the licensees. According to the
petitioners, during the currency of the abkari year 1989-90,
the shops were placed under the Departmental Management
under the provisions of the Abkari shops(Departmental
Management) Rules, 1992 and an amount of Rs.24,24,520/-
was collected as Departmental Management fee. Though,
this amount ought to have been given credit towards their
dues, immediately on realisation, it was only following
Ext.P1 order dated 16.10.1992, the amount was adjusted.
WP(c).No.23521/2008 2
According to the petitioners, on account of the delay in
adjusting, interest accrued on the principal amount and as a
result of which the liability of the licensees increased
correspondingly. Now Ext.P4 notice was issued to the
petitioners requiring them to avail the benefit of Ext.P3 if
they so desires. Thereupon they submitted Ext.P5
application for the benefit of Ext.P3 Amnesty Scheme on
which Ext.P6 order has been passed intimating the amount
payable. It is challenging Ext.P6, this writ petition is filed.
2. The main contention that is raised by the petitioner
is that, if the amount mentioned in Ext.P1 was given credit
with effect from the date on which it ought to have been
credited, they would not have had the liability to pay the
interest that has already accrued and that the principal
amount would also have reduced proportionately. It is
stated that if this had happened their outstanding liability in
terms of Ext.P3, would have been much less than what is
now notified.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners is also now
relying on an order dated 22.2.2000 issued by the erstwhile
WP(c).No.23521/2008 3
Board of Revenue, which according to him, is one granting
relief similar to what is sought for by the writ petitioners.
4. What arise for consideration is the validity of Ext.P6.
In Ext.P6 what has been done is the quantification of the
petitioners’ liability. Since the petitioners are now claiming
adjustment of the amount collected as Departmental
Management fee with effect from the date on which it was
realised and this claim is an admissible one, what is called
for is the requantification of the liability of the petitioners,
which in my view, can be better done by the first
respondent.
5. Therefore, I direct the petitioners to file an
appropriate application before the first respondent claiming
the aforesaid benefit and also the benefit of the order dated
22.2.2000 referred to above. ^This the petitioner shall do as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate within ten days from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
6. It is directed that on receipt of such an application
from the petitioners, the first respondent shall consider the
same and pass orders thereon as expeditiously as possible
WP(c).No.23521/2008 4
and at any rate within 2 weeks thereafter.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner now points out
that, since the quantification of their liability has been done
as per Ext.P6 and if they do not make payment thereof
within 15 days thereafter, in view of the provisions
contained in Ext.P3 they will be loosing the benefit of the
Amnesty Scheme. Since I have already directed the Excise
Commissioner to examine the claim of the petitioners, in
order to take care of the grievance now raised by the
petitioners, I direct that the 15 days time specified in Ext.P3
Government Order will run as against the petitioners only
from the date of receipt of the order as directed to be
passed by the Excise Commissioner, provided the
petitioners file the representation in this behalf within the
time specified above.
Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before
the first respondent for compliance.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
WP(c).No.23521/2008 5
vi.