AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.D. Dinakaran, J.—In W.P. No. l 1557 of 1994, the Petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the Proceedings in N. Dis. No. l961/94/J-l dated 25.3.1994 on the file of the Collector, Periyar District at Erode, the Respondent herein and to quash the same.
In W.P. No, 11558 of 1994, the Petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the Proceedings in N. Dis. No. l966/94/J-l dated 25.3.1994 on the file of the Collector, Periyar District at Erode, the Respondent herein and to quash the same.
In W.P. No. 11559 of 1994, the Petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the Proceedings in N. Dis.N''o.l977/94/J-l dated 25.3.1994 on the file of the Collector, Periyar District at Erode, the Respondent herein and to quash the same.
The Petitioner was a licensee with regard to arrack Shop No. 13 in Punjai Puliampatti, Sathiamangalam Taluk, Periyar District, Shop No. 18 in Chikkarasampalayam, Sathiamangalam Taluk, Periyar District and Shop No. 29 in Erangathur, Sathiamangalam Taluk, Periyar District in W.P. Nos. 11557, 11558 and 11559 of 1994 respectively, during the excise year 1984-85. Contending that there was a short supply of arrack from November, 1984 to March, 1985, the Petitioner did not pay the kist for the said period with regard to the said shops, which work out to Rs. 28,900/-, Rs. 8,000/-and Rs. 7,500/- respectively. Hence, a demand was raised by the Respondent against the Petitioner initially. When such demand was challenged before this Court during 1984, this Court, by Orders dated 30.1.1985 and 6.8.1985, directed the Respondent to take appropriate decision in the matter of giving remission of such short-supply of arrack.
The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise had also taken a decision to give remission of kist, proportionate to the short supply with respect to each of the shops. Accordingly, show-cause notices even dated 21.1.1994 were served on the Petitioner for furnishing necessary details, such as the entire quantity of arrack to be supplied to the respective shops, the indent made by the Petitioner and the quantity of arrack supplied to each of the shops of the Petitioner, for giving remission to the said shops.
Even after service of show cause notices to the Petitioner requiring the above details, the Petitioner had not offered his explanation, explaining that the Petitioner had raised indent for the entire quantity of arrack for the respective shops; but the Respondent had not supplied the same, which resulted in short-supply of arrack. On the other hand, the Petitioner, through his Counsel, required the Respondents to furnish a copy of the orders of the High Court dated 30.1.1985 and 6.8.1985 and the decision of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise dated 26.3.1993.
Since the Petitioner failed to furnish the necessary details to work out the remission for short-supply of arrack, the Respondent, by Proceedings in N. Dis. No. 1961/94/J - 1, N. Dis. No. 1966/94/J - 1 and N. Dis. No. 1977/94/J - 1 dated 25.3.1994 respectively, which are impugned in the above Writ Petitions, raised a demand of Rs. 96,365/- for Shop No. 13, in Punjai Puliampatti, Sathiamangalam Taluk, Periyar District, Rs. 27,200/- for Shop No. 18 in Chikkarasampalayam, Sathiamangalam Taluk, Periyar District, and Rs. 25,498.15 for Shop No. 29 in Erangathur, Sathiamangalam Taluk, Periyar District in W.P. Nos. 11557, 11558 and 11559 of 1994 respectively.
Admittedly, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioner had not furnished any detail as to the indent raised by him as against the total entitlement of quantity of arrack for the respective shops as against the show-cause notices dated 21.1.1994, and therefore, as rightly decided by the Respondent, the question of short-supply of arrack does not arise in these Writ Petitions, and hence, the Petitioner cannot complain that he was supplied lesser quantity of arrack; and that he was not given any opportunity. Therefore, finding no violation of the principles of natural justice nor any arbitrary exercise of power, I do not find any merit in raising the impugned demand.
Finding no merits, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. Nos. 17493 to 17495 of 1994 are also dismissed.