IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6638 of 2010(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.K.ASOKAN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.KUNJIKITTEN (LATE), VELAMBATH HOUSE, 'SREELAKSHMY', CHEMBUKAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SECRETARY, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, THRISSUR. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, THRISSUR. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, IRINJALAKKUDA. 6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.6638 OF 2010 (D) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner states that he was the licensee of toddy shop Nos.55 to 96 of Thrissur Excise Range during the year 1997- 2000. During the said period he, along with one late K.V. Ramakrishanan, was the license of Toddy shop Nos.109 to 222 of Irinjalakkuda Excise Range also. License in respect of th aforesaid toddy shops were cancelled on 26.9.1997 and on 27.10.1997 respectively. 2. The liability pertaining to the licenses was the subject matter of various litigations which culminated in Exts.P1 judgment of the Apex Court. It is stated that pursuant to Ext.P1, Commissioner of Excise passed Ext.P2 order and consequentially Exts.P3 and P4 orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise. Ext.P3 concerns the liability of the petitioner in relation to the Trissur Excise range and the amount due has been quantified at Rs.45,95,467/- towards principal and Rs.97,72,257/- towards interest. Ext.P4 concerning Irinjalakkuda Excise Range shows a liability of Rs.2,32,97,362/- towards principal and WPC.No.6638 /2010 :2 : Rs.4,93,02,507/- was quantified as the interest due. Petitioner submits that the liability quantified by Exts.P3 and P4 is incorrect and that if Ext.P1 judgment is correctly implemented his liability will be much less that what is shown in Exts.P3 and P4. 3. While the matter stood thus by Ext.P5, an Amnesty scheme was announced by the Government, the period of which was extended till 31.3.2010 by Ext.P6 order. By Exts.P7 and P8 petitioner applied for the benefit of Amnesty Scheme and on receipt thereof Exts.P10 and P11 replies have been issued by the 3rd respondent informing that, since the request made by the petitioner by Exts.P7 and P8 for the benefit of the Amnesty scheme is subject to his contention that the liability quantified is incorrect and reserving his right to agitate the same, the offer made is a conditional one and therefore cannot be accepted. It is thereupon that this writ petition has been filed challenging Exts.P10 and P11. 4. Ext.P5 is the Amnesty Scheme and the benefit of which was sought by the petitioner by Exts.P7 and P8 applications. A reading of Ext.P5 shows that the application for the benefit of WPC.No.6638 /2010 :3 : the scheme can be entertained only if court cases or appeals filed by the defaulter are withdrawn. This evidently shows that if a persons is to avail of the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme, he should withdraw all his disputes which he has against the liability quantified by the department and once payment is made under the scheme, there cannot be any further disputes. In this case evidently Exts.P7 and P8, the applications made by the petitioner, shows that he has disputed the liability that has been quantified by respondents as per Exts.P3 and P4 and sought the benefit of Amnesty scheme, reserving his rights to agitate his disputes. If that be so, so long as the dispute which the petitioner has raised against the quantification survives, he does not satisfy the condition laid down in Ext.P5 for availing of the benefit of the Amnesty scheme. Therefore there is nothing illegal in Exts.P10 and P11 issued by the 3rd respondent to the effect that since the offer made by the petitioner for the benefit of Amnesty Scheme is conditional, the same cannot be accepted. 5. In view of this, the writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. WPC.No.6638 /2010 :4 : However, it is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner making a fresh request in compliance with Exts.P5 and P6 Amnesty scheme referred to above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/