AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Basheer, J.—The appellant is a company engaged in the business of manufacture of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and other allied activities. For the above purpose, the appellant has been admittedly importing Rectified Spirit and Extra Neutra Alcohol (ENA) from other States. Appellant has been granted no objection certificate and requisite permit by the competent authority to import the above raw materials.
But the grievance of the appellant is that the respondents have brought in certain illegal restrictions which will hamper the legitimate activity of the appellant. For this purpose Rule 11 of the Kerala Rectified Spirits Rules, 1972 has been amended. Pursuant to the above amendment, Ext.P4 demand notice was issued by respondent No. 3 directing the appellant to pay Rs. 20 per proof litre of ENA in excess of the permitted loss envisaged in the relevant Rule. The above demand notice was challenged by the appellant before the learned Single Judge, apart from calling in question the vires and legality of the new amendment.
The learned Single Judge, while admitting the writ petition and issuing notice to the respondents, was not however inclined to stay the operation of the amendment and the demand notice issued by the respondents. The learned Single Judge however observed that any demand made by the appellant in terms of Ext.P4 will be subject to further orders to be passed in the writ petition.
The above interim order is under challenge in this writ appeal. When this appeal is taken up for consideration today, it is brought to our notice that the respondents have filed counter affidavit in the case.
However, learned Counsel for the appellant points out that the respondents do not seem to have a case as discernible from the counter affidavit, that the appellants are indulging in deliberate evasion of the spirit or ENA. But according to the learned Counsel, the respondents are likely to proceed against the appellant even in cases where there is accidental loss in the course of transportation. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel that there may be occasions when unaccounted loss due to spillage, evaporation, etc. may occur. But the respondents are likely to proceed against the appellant as though such instances are deliberate acts of evasions.
We do not propose to make any comment or observation on the above contention raised by the learned Counsel at this stage. However, we hasten to add that it will be open to the appellant to approach the learned Single Judge before whom the writ petition is pending, and pray for appropriate interim orders/directions, if the situation so warrants. Since the respondents have already filed their counter affidavit, it will be only appropriate if the matter is finally heard and disposed of by the learned Single Judge himself. In that view of the matter, writ appeal is closed.
It is made clear that we have not considered the merit of any of the contentions raised by the appellant or the respondents.
Writ appeal is closed in the above terms.