PRAMILA P. RAI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT (EXCISE), THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (EXCISE) AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (REVENUE)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus against the 2nd respondent - Excise Commissioner, Government of Karnataka, to consider the application dated 22.06.2012 filed by the petitioner vide Annexure -G and issue a no due certificate. As per the petition averments, petitioner's father -in -law, K. Balkrishna Rao was an Excise Contractor for Mangalore Taluk in Dakshina Kannada District. He was in arrears of rental dues payable to the Department both towards principal and interest. According to the petitioner, the dues remained unpaid due to the loss sustained by the father -in -law of the petitioner. Petitioner's father -in -law died on 26.06.2002 without making the payment of arrears. Later on, husband of the petitioner also could not discharge the dues. Unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner also died on 11.04.2006.

(2.) AS per Annexure -B communication dated 26.10.2006 addressed to the petitioner, she was called upon by the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangalore, to pay total amount of Rs. 77,23,900/ - on or before 31.10.2006 under what is known as 'Karasamadhana Scheme - 2. It was made clear in the said notice that if the said amount were to be paid on or before 31.10.2006 by filing necessary application in the prescribed form, then, the interest due and payable in a sum of Rs. 3,30,96,037/ - would be waived as per the scheme.

(3.) LEARNED Government Pleader has filed statement of objections. In the statement of objections, a defense is taken stating that the communication Annexure -B issued by the then Deputy Commissioner was not correct inasmuch as the actual dues towards the principal and arrears was not reflected in the rental register and therefore, the petitioner cannot be regarded as having discharged the total outstanding amount in terms of the scheme, thereby entitling her for issue of No Due Certificate. This defense taken in the statement of objections filed before this Court is strongly refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.