JUDGMENT : Courts have long been accentuating and emphasising the unequivocal need for public officials to follow the imperative processual procedure while proceeding to enforce and recover demands of public dues and revenue from defaulters. It is an inviolable requirement that the State and its functionaries must respect all legal and statutory rights that are owed to a person - even an alleged defaulter. When a governmental or executive action harms a person without following the course of law, it constitutes a process violation, causing violence of the Rule of Law. 2. This case presents a situation of this kind warranting the intervention of this Court. I will first detail the facts involved and then deal with the forensic issues thrown up. 3. This writ petition has been filed challenging a notice issued by the authorised officer attached to the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Thrissur Division, demanding the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 2,27,959/- along with interest of Rs. 6,02,637/-. The said notice also says that it has been issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Calicut, on the strength of Certificate No.1/06, dated 27.11.2006 and that the issuer of the notice has been authorised by the said Commissioner under Section 142(1)(c)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 4 of the Customs (Attachment of Property of defaulters for recovery of Government dues) Rules, 1995. 4. The petitioner's averments show that certain amounts were due from a proprietary firm, by name M/s.New Rocket Beedi Company which was owned by his father - late V.M. Aliyar. It is also clear from the materials available that proceedings were initiated by the Department against Sri. V.M. Aliyar for recovery of certain amounts, which led to proceedings being pursued before the Customs, Excise, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). It further becomes discernible that, out of the amounts recoverable from Sri. Aliyar, all except 2,27,934/-, had been recovered by sale of two of his properties and that Sri. Aliyar died soon after. 5. It transpires that several years later, on the allegation that this amount of Rs.2,27,934/-is due along with interest and that the petitioner, being the legal heir of the late Sri. Aliyar, all except 2,27,934/-, had been recovered by sale of two of his properties and that Sri. Aliyar died soon after. 5. It transpires that several years later, on the allegation that this amount of Rs.2,27,934/-is due along with interest and that the petitioner, being the legal heir of the late Sri. Aliyar, is responsible for the dues, Ext.P1 notice was issued to him by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Thrissur asking the petitioner to appear before him to explain why revenue recovery proceedings, as stipulated under Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962, be not initiated against him. A copy of this notice has been placed on record as Ext.P1 and the petitioner responded to the same through Ext.P2 reply, dated 23.01.2006, stating that he has not succeeded to any property of his father and therefore, that no action under the Customs Act or under the Rules can be initiated against him. The petitioner says that nothing was done by the Assistant Commissioner for a long period of time thereafter, but that abruptly, in the year 2007, he received Ext.P3 notice from the authorised officer demanding that he pay the aforementioned amount along with interest. The petitioner has challenged Exts.P1 and P3 notices as being illegal and unlawful. 6. I have heard Sri. Gilbert George Correya, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. There was no representation for the respondents and I, therefore, did not have the opportunity of hearing the oral submissions on their behalf. 7. As I have narrated above, the specific case of the petitioner is that he has not inherited or succeeded to any of the properties of his father and, therefore, that he cannot be construed to be a person responsible for the debts of the late Sri. Aliyar, either under the Customs Act or under the Rules. He, however, concedes that he has property, which was settled by his father in his name as early as in the year 1978, but contends that this would be of no consequence since proceedings were initiated by the department against his father on the alleged default later only in the year 1986. The petitioner, therefore, says that merely because a property had been settled in his favour by his father, he cannot be held responsible to satisfy the demand made by the department against his deceased father. 8. The petitioner, therefore, says that merely because a property had been settled in his favour by his father, he cannot be held responsible to satisfy the demand made by the department against his deceased father. 8. I notice that a counter affidavit has been filed on record on behalf of the respondents wherein the specific averments are as under : “3. It is respectfully submitted that M/s New Rocket Beedi Co was a proprietary unit engaged in the manufacturing of hand made branded beedis, under the proprietorship of late Sri. V.M. Aliyar. During 1986, an offence case was booked against the firm and a duty amounting to Rs.4,51,220/- was confirmed vide Order in Original No. 37/87 dated 16-03-1987 along with a penalty of Rs.10,000/- on the proprietor and Rs.3,000/- on other noticees. The firm had filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and as per the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal, they had paid Rs. 50,000/-towards pre deposit during 1987-88. The Hon'ble Tribunal vide their Final Order dated 04-11-1988 upheld the decision of the lower authority but reduced the penalty imposed on the Proprietor to Rs.5,000/-. The proprietor of the Company, Shri. V.M. Aliyar expired on 03-07-1991. As a result of the revenue realization efforts, an amount of Rs.28,436/- was realized in 1992 and amount of Rs.1,49,750/- was realized in April, 2000 by way of auction of the property belonging to late Shri. V.M. Aliyar. Therefore, the balance amount to be realized is Rs.2,22,934/- (Duty) plus Rs.3,000/- (penalty) totaling to Rs.2,27,934/-. 4. During the hearing of appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner does not own any property except 2 acres 75 cents with which he earns some income and another extent of 1 acre and 93.25 cents which is a barren land not yielding any income. This 2 acres 75 cents land had been auctioned and other one is not seen to have been auctioned. 5. It is respectfully submitted further that the petitioner's plea with reference to paras 1 to 3 of the statement of facts that he never inherited any of the properties of his late father is incorrect in as much as that as per the affidavit dated 10-09-1981 executed by the legal heirs of the deceased wanted to conduct the business of New Rocket Beedi Co. at Karumathra village in the name of Shri. V.A. Nazar (i.e. the petitioner in this W.P) and agreed to pay the liabilities, if any of the late Shri V.M. Aliyar. A true copy of the Affidavit is produced herewith as and marked as Exhibit R-1(a). 6. It is respectfully submitted with reference to para 4 & 5 that the statement is true that the petitioners had conducted the business after the death of his father but based on the strength of a new license which was issued in his favour by the department after producing an affidavit that the liabilities of the company would be taken over by the legal heirs including the petitioner. The present recovery proceedings are initiated to realize the balance amount of Rs.2,27,934/- as explained in above paragraphs. As the efforts were initiated to recover the dues immediately after passing the Order-in-Original, the claim is not hit by the limitation of time. 7. It is respectfully submitted with reference to para 6 that the petitioner has in his possession 751/2 cents of land in survey No.35 of Karumathra village and this piece of land originally belonged to late Shri. V.M. Aliyar, proprietor of M/s New Rocket Beedi Co. as per Tahasildar, Mukundapuram Taluk, letter No. 22107/89 dated 21-11-2005. This was the piece of land on which the building which housed the New Rocket Beedi Co. at the time of issuance of the Order-in-Original in 1987 was situated. The true copies of Shri. V.A. Nazar's letter dated 24-11-2005 and Tahasildar's Mukundapauram letter dated 21-11-2005 are produced herewith as Exhibits R-1(b) and R1(c) respectively. 8. It is respectfully submitted with reference to paras 7, 8 & 9 that following the death of Shri. V.M. Aliyar, his legal heirs had executed an affidavit produced herewith as Ext R-1(a) stating that they are ready to take over the liabilities of New Rocket Beedi Co., and the petitioner had obtained a new licence from the department. He continued the business till 1997. Since the petitioner had inherited the defaulter's property and also had filed an affidavit to take over the defaulter's liabilities, the department is justified in initiating the revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner. He continued the business till 1997. Since the petitioner had inherited the defaulter's property and also had filed an affidavit to take over the defaulter's liabilities, the department is justified in initiating the revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner. As per Rule 21 of Customs (Attachment of Property of defaulters for Recovery of Government dues) Rules, 1995 which are made applicable to like matters in Central Excise, the proceedings initiated under these rules may be continued against the legal heirs of the defaulter.” 9. Thus luculently, the respondents, through their counter affidavit, takes the position that after Sri. V.M. Aliyar died, the petitioner, his mother and his siblings had sworn to an affidavit and had filed it before the department saying that they agree to be responsible for the liabilities, if any, of the late Sri. V.M. Aliyar. The respondents, based on this assertion in the counter affidavit, build their contention that once the petitioner had thus agreed in the said affidavit, a copy of which has been placed on record as Ext.R1(a), that he, his mother and his siblings are responsible for the dues, they cannot resile from the same when action is taken against them for recovery of the said dues. 10. I have considered the submissions made by Sri. Gilbert George Correya and the averments contained in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. 11. Whatever be the nature of the dialectical contentions of the parties against each other, one thing becomes obvious from the pleadings on record that after Ext.P1 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, no orders have been issued by the competent authority fixing liability against him, especially when he had, by Ext.P2 reply, denied responsibility to honour it. Even the counter affidavit does not say that an order fixing liability on the petitioner or finding him responsible for the default was made thereafter or that Ext.P3 notice is consequential to any such determination. All that the respondents say is that the petitioner had, along with his mother and siblings, sworn to Ext.R1(a) affidavit making themselves responsible for all the liabilities of the late Sri. Aliyar and therefore, that the petitioner cannot renege from his responsibility under Ext.P3 notice. 12. I am afraid that the stand of the respondents cannot, in my view, find favour in law. Aliyar and therefore, that the petitioner cannot renege from his responsibility under Ext.P3 notice. 12. I am afraid that the stand of the respondents cannot, in my view, find favour in law. This is because, as per Ext.P1 notice the petitioner was asked to show cause why action should not be taken against him. He had made Ext.P2 explanation to this and therefore, legally, any action could have been taken against him only after his objections had been properly considered. Nothing has been placed on record by the respondents, even in their pleadings, that any such orders were issued by the Assistant Commissioner or any other competent Authority and therefore, the issuance of Ext.P3 notice appears to be done in a mechanical manner without the necessary application of mind. 13. It is further pertinent that nowhere does the respondents say, even in their counter affidavit, that the petitioner has succeeded or inherited any property but their only assertion is that the petitioner is in possession of certain extents of land which was earlier owned by his father. They do not, however, state how the petitioner came to be in ownership and possession of this property and this becomes relevant because the petitioner specifically asserts that he obtained possession and ownership of property on the strength of a settlement deed executed by his father in the year 1978, which is nearly 8 years before proceedings for recovery were initiated against the late Sri. Aliyar. In the absence of any consideration of these issues by the competent among the respondents, I am certain that Ext.P3 notice cannot find favour in law. 14. In the result, I am impelled, being without any other option, to allow this writ petition and to quash Ext.P3 notice, however, leaving liberty to the competent Authorities to continue further action, if it is so permitted in law, but only after considering Ext.P2 objection and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and thereafter by concluding it through a proper and appropriate order. It is so ordered. The petitioner's specific contention that he has not inherited any property from his father and that the property owned by him was obtained under the settlement deed in the year 1978 are relevant factors which will have to be considered by the competent Authorities while orders are issued determining his liability. 15. It is so ordered. The petitioner's specific contention that he has not inherited any property from his father and that the property owned by him was obtained under the settlement deed in the year 1978 are relevant factors which will have to be considered by the competent Authorities while orders are issued determining his liability. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner at this time also says that there is an additional issue of limitation which is also crucial in this case because according to him, proceedings have been attempted to be initiated against his client more than 20 years after the initial proceedings are commenced against his deceased father. If the petitioner raises this issue also before competent Authority, when he is afforded an opportunity of being heard under the terms of this judgment, this shall also be considered appropriately in terms of law by the said Authority. This writ petition is thus allowed, but in the rather peculiar facts presented herein, I refrain from making any order as to costs and leave the parties to suffer their respective costs.