AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Govindasamy, J.—The petitioner''s wife V. S. Muthammal was a licensee in respect of manufacture of safety matches under L.4 Licence
No. 1/M/70. With the reference to the manufacture of matches during the years 1969-70 to 1973-74, the said Muthammal paid excise duty at the
rate of Rs. 3.75 per gross matches of 50 and that was accepted by the first respondent. The rate of duty was subsequently increased from Rs.
3.75 to 4.30 and that such an enhancement was under challenge and even though this Court set aside the said enhancement, the Supreme Court on
appeal reversed the decision of this Court upholding Notification 205/67 enhancing the rate of duty from Rs. 3.75 to 4.30 per gross. When a
demand was made, the said Muthammal disputed the demand and challenged her liability to pay the differential tax on the basis that the demand
was illegal and was barred by limitation and that no demand could be made for recovery of short levy besides raising other contentions. Similar and
identical demands were made and those demands were under challenge before this Court and the Division Bench of this Court held that similar
demand made for any period prior to three months from December, 1974 were not valid. Following the said demand, the respondent did not
proceed with the enforcement of the demand. The said Muthammal died on 15-2-1979 at Sankarankoil leaving the petitioner and other children as
legal representatives. The first respondent, subsequent to the death of the said Muthammal sought to recover and indirectly enforce the said illegal
demand issued to the deceased Muthammal against the petitioner by not allowing the petitioner to clear matches from his own match factory during
the year 1980. Since the petitioner is an independent licensee, the petitioner issued a notice which was in vain and consequently, has filed the
above writ petition for issue of writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from proceeding against the petitioner or his assets for the alleged
arrears of excise duty demand made by the first respondent against the deceased Muthammal in Form D.D. 2 Serial No. E/63-194219 dated 5-
12-1974 by invoking the provisions of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act.
Mr. E. Padmanabhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner represents that the impugned demand was hit by limitation and
consequently, the respondents cannot enforce the demand since the demand was barred by limitation. Secondly, learned counsel for the petitioner
represents that the petitioner is one of the heirs of the deceased and since the petitioner has not succeeded to the estate of the deceased
Muthammal, the question of recovery as against the petitioner and his assets does not arise.
Mr. A. S. Venkatachalamoorthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents represents that if the claim of the respondents is
upheld, the respondents are entitled to enforce as against the assets of the deceased Muthammal subject to proof if any, with reference to the
position of such estate at the hands of the petitioner. In so far as the first point is concerned, learned counsel is not in a position to sustain the order
of demand for the reason that the decision of the Devotion Bench of this Court by order dated 23-11-1981 in batch of writ petitions, viz., W.P.
Nos. 4145 to 4155 of 1975 will still hold good and if it is so, the demands made for any period prior to three months from December, 1974 are
not valid. In the instant case, the demands were made beyond the period of three months from December, 1974 and it is clearly barred by
limitation. Even as against the petitioner demands cannot be maintained as it was barred by limitation. In view of the aforesaid reasons, viz., that the
demand is barred by limitation, and that the petitioner, having not succeeded to the estate of the deceased, the petitioner is not liable for any short
levy or differential duty in respect of the business that was carried on or in respect of the excise goods manufactured by the deceased Muthammal.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, there shall be a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from enforcing or proceeding against the petitioner
or his assets for the alleged arrears of excise duty demand made by the first respondent against the deceased Muthammal in Form DD. 2 Serial
No. E/63-194219 dated 5-12-1974. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.