SARASWATHI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioner's husband one late k. Sadashiva havaldar, secured an excise contract for the taluks of sagar and sorab during the excise year 1981-82 for vending of arrack in retail on a monthly rental of Rs. 2,60,100/- and for Rs. 85,000/- respectively. Arrears to the tune of Rs. 4,35,100/- being the rental amount was found due from the deceased sadashiva. As against the said amount, the interest was calculated at 61/4% as that was the prevailing rate of interest and a sum of Rs. 1,16,009.50 was added up to the said amount.

(2.) the late sadashiva sought remission of the kist. But it was rejected by the deputy commissioner of excise, shimoga district, shimoga. He however, recommended for payment of instalments. By order dated 10-12-1984 he granted 36 instalments with interest.

(3.) it is not in dispute that the petitioner's husband late sadashiva paid the entire amount with interest and fully discharged his liabilities. Unfortunately for the petitioner, rule 15 of the general condition Rules was amended by enhancing the rate of interest from 61/4% to 18% p.a. which came into effect from 1-7-1983. The second and third respondents calculated the difference of interest at 111/4% which amounted to a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The petitioner was served with a demand notice with respect to the difference of interest. Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the first respondent in no. Hd 144 elc 89, invoking the provisons of section 62 of the Karnataka excise act (hereinafter called as 'the act' only). During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner's husband late sadashiva havaldar died. Accordingly a memo was filed before the first respondent that the revision petition cannot be prosecuted in view of the death of the husband of the petitioner. It is informed from the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said revision petition abated. It is only after that annexure-c was passed demanding a sum of Rs. 2,55,910.25 from the petitioner for the dues incurred by her husband. Presumably this Rs. 2,55,910.25 is the total sum after calculating interest on 1,50,000/- which was the original liability that was claimed against the petitioner's husband. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that annexure-c is unsustainable in law for the reason that no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why she should not be made liable for the liability incurred by the husband for the arrears for the excise year 1981-82. He further submits that as per the lease contract entered into between the late sadashiva havaldar and the respondents in the agreement, there are no words in the lease deed which terms as 'legal heirs', 'assigns', 'administrators' and 'legal representatives' binding the legal heirs of the deceased for any arrears of excise dues. The learned counsel further submits that a clear reading of section 63 would show that the liability can be recovered only from a person who is primarily liable to pay the same or from the surety, if any, as if they were arrears of land revenue. Section 63 reads as follows: