IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 30834 of 2006(U) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.SIDHARDHAN, THEKKAL HOUSE, MANACADU P.O., ARIKUZHA, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.DILEEP P.PILLAI SMT.LASKHMI N.RENJITH SRI.T.K.SUJITH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE, PALAKKAD. 3. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE IDUKKI. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, THODUPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.30834/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE PERMIT NO.64/ID/M.Y/96-97 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.ID2-9034/96/LD IS DT. 16.12.1996 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 30.1.19097 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT. 31.1.1997. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 16.2.1998 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 30.4.1998 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 18.9.1998. EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.B7.917/99 AND THE NOTICE OF ATTATCHMENT. EXT.P9:- COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NUMBERED B7 917/98 AND THE NOTICE OF ATTACHMENT. EXT.P10:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 12.2.99 IN OP. NO.3672/99. EXT.P11:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 11.9.99 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P12:- COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 7.2.06. EXT.P13:- COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DT. 1.9.06. EXT.P14:- COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P15:- COPY OF THE SCHEME DT. 26.5.08 BEARING NO.G.O.(MS) 108/2008/T.D. EXT.P16:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 17.7.08 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 30834 of 2006 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: AUGUST 7, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner was a licencee of certain toddy shops in Thodupuzha Excise Range for the year 1996-97. In this writ petition, the challenge is regarding the tree tax that was demanded for the aforesaid paid. According to the petitioner, going by Ext.P5, the total liability towards the principal amount itself is Rs.1,84,068/-. In this writ petition, by order dated 22.11.2006, this Court granted stay of recovery on condition that the petitioner remits an amount of Rs.1 lakh. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the amount of Rs.1 lakh was remitted by the petitioner on 24.1.2007, in compliance with the aforesaid interim order. 2. During the pendency of this writ petition, the respondents have come out with Amnesty Scheme and by Ext.P15, the petitioner has been informed that on payment WP(C) 30834 of 2006 2 of the full principal amount and 5% of the interest and penal interest, he can get himself exonerated of his liability. According to the petitioner, if the amount is quantified in terms of Ext.P15 and the amount of Rs.1 lakh deposited by him in pursuance to the interim order passed by this Court is given credit, his balance liability will be only Rs.1,02,843/-. By submitting Ext.P16, petitioner has applied for the benefit of Ext.P15 and the matter is now pending consideration of the 3rd respondent. Petitioner contends that in view of the pendency of this writ petition, the respondents are not considering Ext.P16. 3. Since by Ext.P15 the petitioner has already been intimated that he is eligible for availing of the Amnesty Scheme, what remains is an application to be made by the petitioner and the quantification of his liability. Since the petitioner has already filed Ext.P16 application, he has discharged his part of the obligation and it is now for the 2nd respondent to quantify the liability and intimate the WP(C) 30834 of 2006 3 petitioner for remitting the amount due. 4. True, the petitioner has a claim that Rs.1 lakh deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order dated 22.11.2006 is liable to be given credit towards his liability as quantified in terms of Ext.P15. Normally the petitioner is entitled to such credit, but, however, if the amount is already appropriated towards his liability, this request may not be justified. 5. Since the matter is yet to be considered by the 2nd respondent, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:- i. Ext.P16 application made by the petitioner for availing of the benefit of Ext.P15 Amnesty Scheme shall be considered by the 2nd respondent as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ii. While quantifying and intimating the liability of WP(C) 30834 of 2006 4 the petitioner as above, the 2nd respondent shall also verify whether Rs.1 lakh deposited by the petitioner in pursuance to the order dated 22.11.2006 is available to be given credit. iii. If, on such examination, the amount is found to be still not appropriated towards any liability, credit will be given to such remittance also. 6. It is clarified that I have not dealt with the merits ofs the writ petition and, if the petitioner is ultimately aggrieved by the quantification, it will be open to him to challenge the same. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-