IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 RP.No. 333 of 2009(K) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.17955/2002 Dated 15/06/2004 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD PETITIONER IN THE OP ---------------------------------------------- ATMAN S/O. PULIKKAL SANKARANARAYANAN, NELLAI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE OP ------------------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THRISSUR. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. BY SR. G.P. SRI.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... R.P. No.333 of 2009 in O.P. No.17955 of 2002 .................................................................... Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010. ORDER Review Petition is filed against judgment whereunder this court dismissed the Writ Petition for the reason that petitioners have not remitted even admitted arrears of kist for the year 1997-98 which according to the respondents was over Rs.1.67 crores as on the date of judgment. In fact, it was noticed by this court that the dispute in the W.P. was only against the demand for 1998-99 and 1999-2000. This court held that the assessee who does not care to remit admitted arrears for the first year i.e. 1997-98, should not be permitted to contest demand for subsequent years, whatever be the merits of the case. Therefore, this court declined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of an assessee who does not discharge admitted liability due to the State. 2. The ground raised in the Review Petition is that one of the petitioners who is the review petitioner herein, will be able to settle the liability under the amnesty scheme. When this court has not considered entitlement of the petitioners for amnesty benefit in the judgment, there is 2 no justification to review the judgment on this ground. However, counsel for the review petitioner submitted that according to the review petitioner, only Rs.63,29,852/- is the amount payable under amnesty scheme, whereas the Government Pleader submitted that over Rs.1,69,63,768/- is the amount payable under the amnesty scheme. Since petitioner's entitlement for amnesty benefit is an issue neither raised nor decided in the W.P.(C), there is no scope for entertaining the same in Review Petition. Review Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, if the above amount of Rs.63,29,852/- is paid and an application for amnesty benefit is filed along with the statement prepared by the petitioner, there will be direction to the Deputy Excise Commissioner to consider the petitioner's claim for benefit under amnesty scheme and pass orders thereon within a period of three weeks from date of filing application along with payment as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms