JOSEPH VINCENT Vs. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the mater was taken up, the counsel for the petitioner prayed for a consideration of Ext.P9, an application made by the petitioner seeking refund of excess amount collected from him.

(2.) PETITIONER says that he is an abkari contractor, who had committed default of the Kist arrears for the year 1984- 1985. Subsequently, on the introduction of Rule 25 A of Kerala Abkari Shops(Disposal in Auction) Rules 1974, petitioner claimed benefit of the said Rule. However, the benefit was not given and therefore, he filed O.P.No.23132/2000 before this Court. That original petition was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment directing respondents to redetermine the liability, giving the petitioner benefit of Rule 25A. Although, in compliance with the judgment, Exts.P6 and P8 notices were issued. According to the petitioner, the benefit of Rule 25A was still not given. Therefore, he submitted Ext.P9 representation before the respondents. Ext.P9 was not considered and therefore, the writ petition was filed at a time when the recovery proceedings were initiated. While admitting the writ petition, this Court passed an interim order dated 27.03.2007 and that order is still in force.