Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 630 (KER)

G. Soman v. State of Kerala

2018-08-01

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. 1. The petitioner impugns Exhibit P8 notice issued under provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act on the ground that the amounts shown therein, namely Rs. 33,90,139/- is not accurate and that he is not liable to pay such huge amounts. According to him, on an earlier occasion when a demand for Rs. 3,76,826/- was made, he had approached this Court, which culminated in Exhibit P1 judgment and that thereafter, he had paid Rs. 4,72,380/- on 30.10.2006. The allegation of the petitioner, as voiced through his learned Senior Counsel, Dr. K.P. Satheesan, is that it is without taking into account these payments that the present amount has been quantified. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent refutes the afore submissions made by Dr. Satheesan and says that quantification in Exhibit P8 is based on the fact that the petitioner is involved in the conduct of various shops and that several liabilities have been fixed against him, which have already been quantified as per law and proceedings concluded, thus entitling them to proceed against the petitioner in terms of the Revenue Recovery Act. 3. Dr. K.P. Satheesan, learned Senior Counsel asserts that the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel are not completely correct and points out that this Court had considered this issue in Exhibit P7 judgment, wherein the demand was only to an extent of Rs. 16,51,320/-. According to the learned Senior Counsel, this Court had clarified that if any further action is to be taken against the petitioner, a fresh demand has to be raised. The learned Senior Counsel also says that the present demand for such a huge amount of money is completely unconstitutional since his client has only run the toddy shop only for the period from 01.04.1998 to 31.08.1998. In response to this submission, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the reference of the learned Senior counsel is only to one of the Excise Ranges in which the petitioner was involved and that there are various other shops also, which had been run by him. 4. I have considered Exhibit P7 judgment and I notice that the said judgment was delivered in the context of the fact that the petitioner had approached this Court when a revenue recovery action was proposed against him for Rs.16,51,320/-. 4. I have considered Exhibit P7 judgment and I notice that the said judgment was delivered in the context of the fact that the petitioner had approached this Court when a revenue recovery action was proposed against him for Rs.16,51,320/-. This Court recorded that the petitioner claims to have satisfied the said amount and therefore, directed that if any further amounts are to be recovered, it shall be done only on the basis of a fresh demand. 5. As is obvious from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, he has paid only Rs. 4,72,380/-, as is also evident from Exhibit P2 and therefore, that the recording of the facts in Exhibit P7 was only based on his assertions and nothing more. In such view of the matter, I do not think that it is necessary now to direct respondents 4 and 5 to issue fresh demands to the petitioner. However, so as to afford substantial equity to him, I deem it appropriate that he be given an opportunity to approach the authorities and dispute the quantification. 6. In the afore circumstances, I grant liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate representation against Exhibit P8 demand made under the Revenue Recovery Act before the fifth respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment explaining why such large amounts are not due from him. If such a representation is made before the said authority by the petitioner within the time granted herein, the said authority will be enjoined to consider the same, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the fourth respondent and to thereafter issue an order showing the amounts due from the petitioner and communicate the same to him. 7. Until such time as an order is issued by the fifth respondent and communicated to the petitioner, all action pursuant to Exhibit P8 will stand deferred. 8. Needless to say, further action under the Revenue Recovery Act would adhere to the decision to be taken by the fifth respondent, as per the directions in this judgment and consequently, if the amounts in Exhibit P8 is modified in any manner, then recovery will be pursued only as against that amount. This writ petition is thus ordered.