SATHISCHANDRA AND COMPANY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the question raised by the petitioners pertains to the excise year 1985 to 1986 (1-7-1985 to 30-6-1986). The petitioners question the pmand issued consequent upon the amendment of Karnataka excise (excise duties) rules, 1968 (in short 'the rules'), under which, the duty was increased to Rs. 6/- from Rs. 4/- per bulk litre.

(2.) the petitioners are excise contractors. According to them, they offered their bids on the assumption that the duty would be Rs. 4/- per bulk litre. However, after the commencement of the excise year which was on 1st of june, 1985, rules were amended increasing the duty to Rs. 6/- per bulk litre with effect from 1-8-1985. The demands were issued on various dates somewhere in the year 1987 claiming differences in the duties paid by the petitioners. Mr. A.g. holla, learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions: (i) the amended rules, under which the duty was increased from Rs. 4/- to Rs. 6/- substituted the earlier Rule and therefore, the earlier Rule was not in statute book when the impugned demands were made; consequently, the demand could not have been made lawfully; (ii) principles of natural Justice require an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the demand.

(3.) there is a short history to the litigation. When the amendment was proposed by the draft rules, the same was challenged in several writ petitions. Those writ petitions were dismissed. Thereafter, the very rules were challenged in writ petitions which were also dismissed in M/s. R. Kempanna and co. V state of karnataka. The aforesaid second batch of writ petitions were filed in the year 1988. The present litigation seems to be the third stage when the demands were issued. The present petitioners were not parties in the earlier batch of writ petitions. In kempanna's case, referred to above, the petitioner therein, challenged the demand notices issued to those petitioners, but their challenge was not successful.