IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 17088 of 2006(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.A.UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.ACHUTHANKUTTY, CHETTIPARAMBIL, PONEKARA, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE PALLATTUKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM. 3. DEPUTY TAHSIDLAR (RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAPPALLY NORTH VILLAGE. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SMT.SMITHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.17088/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(P) NO.88/2000 DATED 02/06/2000. P2 : COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED from the SUB TREASURY ERNAKULAM FOR REMITTANCE OF THE FINAL AMOUNT OF RS.11,195/-. P3 : COPY OF the DEMAND NOTICE DATED 19/09/2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4 : COPY OF the COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN WP(C) NO.675/2006. P5 : COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P6 : COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C) NO.838/2006 DATED 22/02/2006. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No.17088 of 2006 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 29th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of Rs.4,73,056/- due towards balance kist arrears for the year 1984- 85. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner availed amnesty benefit under Ext.P1 and full payment was made in terms of the amnesty scheme by 31/08/2000. However, learned Government Pleader submitted that additional demand of Rs.4,73,056/- is on account of short demand in accordance with Ext.P1. The dispute pertains to demand of interest. The amnesty scheme, as per Ext.P1, provides for 75% of rebate of interest payable under the statute. I do not think there can be any controversy on this because petitioner is liable to pay only 25% of the interest payable under the statute. The case of the respondent is that as against 18%, they have by mistake applied 12%. If such a mistake is committed, the differential amount can be recovered from petitioner. However, amnesty benefit cannot be declined to petitioner merely because respondents committed a mistake in the calculation of interest. Moreover, no further interest can be recovered from petitioner on the differential amount even, if petitioner is liable to pay the same. WP(C) No.17088/2006 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Ext.P1 and submitted that statement of the respondent is not correct because interest is charged from 01/04/1986 on wards @ 18%. However, learned Government Pleader submits that interest at 18% is payable from 01/01/1986 on wards. In the circumstances, since the mater requires verification, I direct 1st respondent to re-check the statement of liability given to petitioner and if there is a short levy under the amnesty scheme, 1st respondent will give statement to the petitioner for him to make payment, which should be done within a period of two weeks from receipt of this judgment. If interest at statutory rate was reckoned for all the periods and petitioner has remitted 25%, then 1st respondent will recall revenue recovery proceedings. However, if actual rate was not demanded originally, the difference after granting amnesty benefit can be demanded and if not paid within two weeks thereafter recovery can be continued. Petitioner will produce copy of the judgment for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg