IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 RP.No. 116 of 2010(W) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.16790/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 1&2 IN W.P(C) AND IN LA: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. AIRPORT DIRECTOR, AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CALICUT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CALICUT - 673647. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER TM/COMML,CALICUT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CALICUT - 673647. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S): PETIONER & RESPONDENT NO.3 IN W.P(C): ---------------------------------------------------- 1. C. SADANANDAN KOLLARAKKAL HOUSE P.O. ELATHUR CALICUT - 673303. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE RANGE RAMANATTUKARA, RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE FOR R1 SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN FOR R1 SMT.NISHA BOSE FOR R1 SRI.JOHN VARGHESE,SC,CEN.BOARD OF EXCIS FOR R2 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------------------------------- R.P.No.116/2010 in I.A.NO.5325/2009 in W.P.(C) NO.16790 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2010 O R D E R By order dated 8th October, 2009, taking note of the liability of the petitioner as shown in Ext.P7, this court directed that on the writ petitioner furnishing fixed deposit receipts for Rs.2,07,184/- review petitioners shall release to the writ petitioner fixed deposit receipts worth Rs.22,14,177/- which is withheld by them. It is seeking review of this order that the present review petition is filed. 2. The contention urged by the review petitioners is that towards service tax petitioner's liability for the period up to 17.1.2007 was quantified by them and that when the petitioner sought a No Dues Certificate, he was informed of the liability. It is stated that there upon the petitioner submitted Annexure-A1 letter and remitted Rs.8,16,500/- to make up the shortage of the amount available with the review petitioners towards the aforesaid liability. It is stated that thereupon No Dues Certificate was issued to the petitioner. It is also stated that subsequently the liability of the RP.No.116/2010. :2 : petitioner was quantified at Rs.23,28,866/- and the balance amount of Rs.7,01,811/- available with the review petitioner was refunded to the petitioner. On this basis it is contended that the amount available with them have already been appropriated towards his liability and since no amount is available with them, the direction of this court requiring the review petitioners to refund the amount requires to be reviewed. However, the case of the writ petitioner is that his liability at best is for the period from 10.9.2004 to 31.3.2005 which has been quantified by the Central Excise Department at Rs.2,07,184/-. It is contended that he has no further liability against which the fixed deposit made by him could have adjusted. 3. Therefore the sustainability of this review petition will depend on the question whether the review petitioner has succeeded in establishing that the writ petitioner had any outstanding liability towards the service tax to be paid to the Central Excise Department. Apart from the averment in the affidavit, the review petitioners have not produced any document of the Central Excise Department in support of their contention that RP.No.116/2010. :3 : the writ petitioner had any outstanding liability towards service tax. On the other hand Ext.R1(h) produced along with the additional counter affidavit of the writ petitioner shows that the Review Petitioner's had directed the petitioner to collect and pay service tax directly to the department. In Ext.R1(j) issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise it is stated that for the period from 1.4.2005 to 17.1.2005 the petitioner had paid Rs.9,62,201/- towards service tax and Ext.R1(k) is also a certificate issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise which states that the petitioner has paid all dues up to 30.9.2006. Ext.R1(l) is also a certificate which shows that the petitioner has liability for the period from 10.9.2004 to 31.3.2006 totaling to Rs.2,07,184/-. Th Central Excise Department has not stated in any of these documents that the petitioner has any liability in excess of Rs.2,07,184/- 4. I have been referred to the counter affidavit filed by the Central Excise department in the writ petition where also the Central Excise Department does not say that the petitioner has any outstanding liability for the period subsequent to 31.3.2005 as contended in the review petition. RP.No.116/2010. :4 : 5. In the light of the materials thus made available by the writ petitioner and in the absence of any materials produced by the review petitioner indicating to the contrary, the only conclusion possible is that the review petitioner has not established that the writ petitioner had any outstanding liability towards service tax for the period subsequent to 1.4.2005. In the interim order itself sufficient safeguard has been provided to discharge the liability for the period up to 31.3.2005. Therefore, I do not find any error in the interim order passed warranting it to be reviewed. Review Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/