LAWS(KER)-2018-8-125

G. SOMAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

Decided On August 01, 2018
G. Soman Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(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.