Allowed

A.M.Prembhushan v. the Superintendent Central Excise

Kerala HC10 Jun 2011WP(C)/4457/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ to obtain non-liability certificate and reimbursement of retained excise duty. Court found payment virtually effected via receipts and directed respondent to disburse the amount within two weeks of judgment receipt.

What did the court decide?

Directed second respondent to disburse the retained amount of Rs. 9,58,161/- plus interest to the petitioner within 'two weeks' from date of receipt of judgment copy.

A.M.Prembhushan Vs the Superintendent… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2011 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 4457 of 2011(F)

¶6

-------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

-------------------

¶9

A.M.PREM BHUSHAN, ,MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.VARUNA ENGINEERING WORKS, ARAYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALAPPAD BEACH.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

------------------------

¶13

1. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY, CENTRAL EXCISE OFFICE, TIRUR- 676 101.

¶14

2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, K.S.E.B BOARD, VIDYUTHI BHAVAN, TIRUR, POOKKAYIL (P.O), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 676 107.

¶15

3. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, TRICHUR MAIN BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. PIN-680 001.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC, R2 BY SRI. P.P. THAJUDEEN, S.C, R3 BY ADVS. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN, SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C). NO.4457/2011-F:

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 05/12/2005.

¶22

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 01/02/2010.

¶23

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (TC&M) DTD. 03/12/2010.

¶24

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 20/12/2010.

¶25

EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE R.2. NO.EB1/PURCHASE/VARUNA/10/1047 DTD. 19/07/2010.

¶26

EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE COMPUTER GENERATED RECEIPT, DTD. 02/08/10.

¶27

EXT.P.6A: COPY OF THE COMPUTER GENERATED RECEIPT, DTD. 02/08/2010 EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF RS.3,42841/-.

¶28

EXT.P.6.B: COPY OF THE COMPUTER GENERATED RECEIPT, DTD. 30/08/2010 EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF RS.6,42990/-.

¶29

EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 31/08/2010.

¶30

EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 06/09/2010.

¶31

EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 06/10/2010.

¶32

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

¶37

....................................................... W.P.(C).4457/2011

¶38

Dated this the 10^th day of June, 2011

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

Petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶41

prayers:-

¶42

(i). To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1^st respondent to issue necessary non liability certificate evidencing payment of Rs.12,50,569/- altogether as is evidenced by Ext.P6, P6(a) and P6(b).

¶43

(ii). To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get the reimbursement of Rs.9,58,161.00/-with interest for delayed payment from the 2^nd respondent

¶44

(iii). To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2^nd respondent to reimburse a sum of Rs.9,58,161.00/- with interest for delayed payment.

¶45

(iv). To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3^rd respondent to issue necessary certificate of

¶46

W.P.(C).4457/11

¶47

¶48

having received the amounts by way of Ext.P6, P6(a) and P6(b).

¶49

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of the specific terms of the contract between the petitioner and the KSEB, the petitioner is entitled to have full refund of the Excise Duty paid by the petitioner, on reproduction of proof.

¶50

The case as projected in the writ petition is that the petitioner has already satisfied a sum of Rs.12,50,569/- to the Excise Department as borne by Ext.P6 series receipts. However, the second respondent/Board retained a sum of Rs.9,58,161/payable to the petitioner, stating that the amount has been retained for want of documentary evidence as to the remittance as stated in Ext.P5 letter dated 19.7.2010, which made the petitioner to approach this Court seeking for appropriate reliefs.

¶51

The first respondent has filed a statement, as to the facts and figures in so far as they are concerned, which may not be much necessary to have adjudication of the present case. The Board does not dispute the liability of the Board to reimburse

¶52

W.P.(C).4457/11

¶53

¶54

the amount remitted by the petitioner towards excise duty by virtue of the relevant clause in the agreement and the only reason for retention of the due amount is non-production of the relevant documents, as stated in Ext.P5. It is stated that the payment allegedly effected by the petitioner as per Ext.P6 series has to be substantiated. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent/Bank submits that the payments made as per Ext.P6 series of receipts have been received by the Bank and the same has been transferred to the accounts of the Central Excise Department. So also, there is no dispute by the first respondent anywhere in the statement filed, that the amount covered by Ext.P6 series is still to be transferred to the accounts of the Department.

¶55

In the above circumstances, this Court holds that the petitioner has virtually effected the payment as per Ext.P6 series receipts and this being the position, the second respondent is liable to return the amount retained vide Ext.P5. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to disburse the amount due to the petitioner as shown in Ext.P5 forthwith, at any rate, within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶56

W.P.(C).4457/11

¶57

¶58

Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with

¶59

a copy of a writ petition before the second respondent for taking further steps.

¶60

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶61

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge

¶62

mrcs

A.M.Prembhushan v. the Superintendent Central Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.M.Prembhushan v. the Superintendent Central Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Savithri Amma Vs Sri.Abdul Samad

Dena Bank Vs Kerala State Housing Board and Another

Manomohan Vs the Dist.Collector, Kottayam

Chenoth Kayyalakagath Ayyeru Vs the Tahasildar, Kannur

Housing Development Finance Corporation Vs the Sub Registry Officer, Maradu

Santhosh S Vs State of Kerala