LexEXCISE COMMISSIONER & ORS. versus AJITH KUMAR & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 778 - A EXCISE COMMISSIONER & ORS. y v AJITH KUMAR & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 2891 of 2008) B APRIL 22, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] ~- Kera/a Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 1974 (as amended in 2000) - r.25A - Respondent, /icencee under c the Abkari Act - Licence cancelled - Interest on defaulted amount of revenue due in terms of the Rules - G 0. providing for waiver of interest upto 75% on defaulted amount of revenue due in terms of the Rules - Interpretation of - Application of r. 25A - Held: If there was default on the part of Respondent as D a licencee, interest would be charged only for the period during which licence amount was not paid. .. Maxims - Lex non cogit ad impossibillia - Meaning of - "" Stated. E Interpretation of Statutes - Procedural provision - Interpretation of - Held: Procedural provisions are normally directory and not imperative - Substantial compliance of procedural provisions ordinarily would subserve the purpose and object for which the same has been made. F First Respondent was a licencee under the Abkari Act for the period 1-4-1993 to 31-3-1994. The licence was ~ ... cancelled, whereupon, the shop in question came under management of the Department in terms of the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 1974. The G Department collected a total sum of Rs.31,49,288/- towards Abkari dues. Dispute arose as to whether the said amount should be adjusted from the total liability of First Respondent. First Respondent filed writ petition which ... was allowed by judgment dated 11-8-2000 whereby and H 778 EXCISE COMMISSIONER & ORS. v. AJITH KUMAR 779 &ANR. whereunder it was directed that the amount collected A towards Abkari dues be adjusted towards liability due from the Appellant. Meanwhile G.O.(P)No.88/2000/TD dated 2-6-2000 was issued which provided for waiver of interest upto 75% on the defaulted amount of revenue due in terms of the said 8 Rules, wherefor Rule 25A was introduced. First Respondent sought benefit of the said Government Order which was denied to him on the premise that he had not complied with the condttions precedent therefor. Respondents filed writ petition before the High Court C which was allowed. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Rule 25A, as inserted by reason of the notification dated 3-6-2000, contains a non-obstante D . clause providing for a legal entitlement to the li'Cencees. Such exemption is hedged by two conditions precedent as provided for in the provisos appended thereto, being: (1) the taxes, duties shall be paid with reduced interest on or before 31•08•2000; and (2) that the defaulter who E opts for payment of arrears thereunder would make an application to the Assistant Excise Commissioner in writing on or before 15-07-2000. [Para 11] [785-D, E, F] 1.2. During the period 1-4-1993 and 31-3-1994, Respondents paid a sum of Rs.41,16,841/-. A sum of F Rs.31,49,288/- was also realized by the State during the said period. Appellants evidently. did not adjust the said amount of Rs.31,49,288/- from the total amount. It was done only after the judgment of the High Court which was pa~sed only on 11-8~2000. The said amount should have, G in law, be.en adjusted as on 1-4-1994. As the matter was pending adjudication before the High Court, Respondents were unable to file any such application on or before 15- 7-2000 for waiver of interest or pay any amount on or H 780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 6 S.C.R. A before 31-8-2000. In terms of the said judgment of High Court, Appellants were directed to inform the respondent as regards the outstanding liability. A fresh demand, therefore, was to' be raised. The said order was not complied with. The said order was unsuccessfully s challenged before the Division Bench. SLP therefrom to this Court also failed. [Para 14] [788-A-E] 1.3. If the benefit of the said notification could not be availed of by the Respondents because of the pendency of the writ petition, the High Court cannot be said to have C committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment. [Para 15] [788-E, F] 1.4. Lex non cogit ad impossibillia is a well known maxim which means that nobody can be asked to do a 0 thing which is impossible to be performed. [Para 16] [788-F] 1.5. Rule 25A confers a right. How the said right is to be exercised is a matter of procedure. The procedural p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.