K.T. Kuruvila vs The Commissioner Of Excise on 20 August, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 25065 of 2008(H)


1. K.T. KURUVILA,AGED 63 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER,

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :20/08/2008

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

                       ===============
                   W.P.(C) NO. 25065 OF 2008 H
                  ====================

              Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008

                           J U D G M E N T

Petitioner was one of the Abkari contractors during the year

1980-81. In this writ petition, what is claimed by the petitioner

is the benefit of Ext.P5, Amnesty scheme announced by the

Government of Kerala. Exts.P6 and P7 are the two

representations made by the petitioner for the aforesaid benefit.

However, it is seen that in these representations, petitioner is

also claiming that liability is to be apportioned among the other

co licencees as well. This is not a benefit which the petitioner can

claim while claiming the benefit of Amnesty scheme, which only

provides for settlement of liability in the manner provided

therein.

2. It is pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner is reserving his liberty for claiming

apportionment of liability and recovery of individual contribution

from the other licencees and that the same will be pursued

independently. All that he now wants is that the claim made by

WPC 25065/08
:2 :

him in Exts. P6 and P7 for the benefit of Ext.P5 Amnesty Scheme

should be directed to be considered.

3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing

that the 2nd respondent shall consider the eligibility of the

petitioner for the benefit of Amnesty scheme as announced by

the Government of Kerala in Ext.P5 ignoring the claim for

apportionment of the liability. This shall be done, as expeditiously

as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of

this judgment.

Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the

2nd respondent for compliance.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp