TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 420
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T Petitioner challenges Exts.P2, P3 and P4 and seeks for a declaration that the demand of interest from 29.7.2003 for Rs. 1,75,000/- made in Exts.P2, P3 and P4 is illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts involved in the above writ petition would disclose that the petitioner's vehicle which was involved in an abkari offence was seized and confiscation proceedings were taken by the authorized offic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty as he is willing to pay an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- in lieu of confiscation. Authority was bound to pass an order permitting him to pay the amount in lieu of confiscation in terms of Rule 4(1)(a) and (b) of the Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as `the Rules'). Petitioner relies upon judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.27916/09 which, inter a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... But the notice was returned as unclaimed. Again notice was issued to the petitioner in person. But since there is no response on the part of the petitioner, Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. 5. Having regard to the above factual situation, the short question to be considered is whether petitioner is entitled to challenge Exts.P2, P3 and P4 and whether the direct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said amount. The liability to pay the security amount arises when there is default on the part of the petitioner in not producing the vehicle before the competent authority. Apparently,the revisional order was passed by the Excise Commissioner on 5.11.2011. Admittedly, the vehicle was not produced after the order was passed in terms of Ext.P1. Therefore, the petitioner will have the liability ....