Allowed

T.R.Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Dec 2022WP(C)/14286/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Manufacturers of Indian Made Foreign Liquor challenged demand notices seeking the differential brand registration fee for 2012-2013 after the State revised the fee from Rs.1,00,000 to Rs.2,00,000 by notification dated 30.03.2013. The court held the notification had no retrospective operation and set aside the demands, allowing the writ petitions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notices demanding the enhanced brand registration fee for 2012-2013 set aside; the writ petitions are allowed.

T.R.Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala — Customs and Excise | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 23780 OF 2016

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

UNITED SPIRITS LTD.,
VARANADU, CHERTHALA,
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER MR.JAIKRISHNA K.

¶8

BY ADV SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶11

2 THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶12

3 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE UNITED SPIRITS LTD., VARANADU, CHERTHALA 689 539.

¶13

SMT.RASHMI.K.M. - SR. GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).14286/2019, 7025/2017 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C)NO.23780/2016 & Conn. Cases

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶18

PRESENT

¶19

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶20

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶21

1944

¶22

WP(C) NO. 14286 OF 2019

¶23

PETITIONER:

¶24

T.R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶25

PROPRIETOR, M/S. ELITE DISTILLERIES AND BEVERAGES
CO. KIRALOOR, MUNDOOR P.O., TRISSUR-680 541.

¶26

BY ADVS.

¶27

RAJU K.MATHEWS
SMT.V.SUSMITHA

¶28

RESPONDENTS:

¶29

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶30

2 THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶31

3 THE EXCISE INSPECTOR ELITE DISTILLERIES AND BEVERAGES CO. KIRALOOR, MUNDOOR P.O., TRISSUR-680 541.

¶32

SMT.RASHMI.K.M. - SR. GP

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).23780/2016 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

WP(C)NO.23780/2016 & Conn. Cases

¶35

¶36

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶37

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL WEDNESDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶38

1944

¶39

WP(C) NO. 7025 OF 2017

¶40

PETITIONER:

¶41

UNITED SPIRITS LTD
UNIT PALAKKAD, K. PUDUR,
KANJIKODE WEST, PALAKKAD,
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
MR. JAIKRISHNA K.

¶42

BY ADV SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS

¶43

RESPONDENTS:

¶44

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695001.

¶45

2 THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶46

3 THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE UNIT PALAKKAD, K. PUDUR, KANJIKODE WEST, PALAKKAD .678621.

¶47

SMT.RASHMI.K.M. - SR. GP

¶48

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).23780/2016 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶49

WP(C)NO.23780/2016 & Conn. Cases

¶50

¶51

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶52

PRESENT

¶53

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶54

1944

¶55

WP(C) NO. 7611 OF 2017

¶56

PETITIONER:

¶57

M/S. EMPEE DISTILLERIES LTD.
KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD,

¶58

REPRESENTED BY ITS UNIT HEAD MR. SASI S.

¶59

BY ADV SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS

¶60

RESPONDENTS:

¶61

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶62

2 THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.

¶63

3 THE EXCISE INSPECTOR EMPEE DISTILLERIES LTD., KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD -678 621.

¶64

SMT.RASHMI.K.M. - SR. GP

¶65

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).23780/2016 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶66

WP(C)NO.23780/2016 & Conn. Cases

¶67

¶68

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶69

PRESENT

¶70

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶71

1944

¶72

WP(C) NO. 23564 OF 2017

¶73

PETITIONER:

¶74

M/S.KAY CEE DISTILLERIES
MARAVANCHERRY, PUDUKKAD, TRISSUR-680312,
REPRESENTED BY ITS FACTORY MANAGER

¶75

MR.A.RAJINIKANTHAN.

¶76

BY ADV SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS

¶77

RESPONDENTS:

¶78

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶79

2 THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶80

3 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE M/S.KAY CEE DISTILLERIES, MARAVANCHERRY, PUDUKKAD, TRISSUR, 680312.

¶81

SMT.RASHMI.K.M. - SR. GP

¶82

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).23780/2016 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶83

¶84

WP(C)NO.23780/2016 & Conn. Cases

¶85

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶86

PRESENT

¶87

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶88

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶89

1944

¶90

WP(C) NO. 24251 OF 2016

¶91

PETITIONER:

¶92

M/S. K.S. DISTILLERY
A UNIT OF SREEDHARAN & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,
VARAM, KANNUR-670 594,
REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.ANUP.

¶93

BY ADVS.
SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON
SMT.MEERA V.MENON

¶94

RESPONDENTS:

¶95

1 THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶96

2 THE EXCISE INSPECTOR K.S.DISTILLERY, VARAM, KANNUR-670 594.

¶97

3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶98

SMT.RASHMI.K.M. - SR. GP

¶99

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).23780/2016 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶100

WP(C)NO.23780/2016 & Conn. Cases

¶101

¶102

JUDGMENT

¶103

[WP(C) Nos.23780/2016, 14286/2019, 7025/2017, 7611/2017, 23564/2017, 24251/2016]

¶104

This order of mine shall dispose of six writ petitions for quashing of the demand raised by the Circle Inspector of Excise seeking revised registration fees for labeling of the brands in view of the notification published in Kerala gazette ordinary notification No.917 dated 30.03.2013.

¶105

Succinctly, the facts in brief are that the petitioners are manufactures of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and for selling brands have been seeking the registration as per the provisions of Rule 3 of Foreign Liquor (Registration of Brands) Rules, 1995 (for short, ‘1995 Rules’). For the purpose of registration, the fees prescribed is Rs.50,000/- for the distilleries situated within Kerala and Rs.1,00,000/- for the distilleries situated outside Kerala. Since the petitioners are having the brands of the breweries located outside the State of Kerala, for the period 2012 to 2013, had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for registration of the brands. State of Kerala promulgated the notification dated 30.03.2013 whereby

¶106

WP(C)NO.23780/2016 & Conn. Cases

¶107

8

¶108

charges from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- were revised. In consequence thereof, petitioners were served with the demand notices by the respondents for making the payment ie., deficient amount for the period 2012 to 2013 which was duly replied by asserting that they were not liable to pay as the notification did not specify any retroactive effect. It was further contended that the notification was promulgated one day before the expiry of the financial y ear, has to be from 01.04.2013, new financial year .

¶109

Learned counsel representing the petitioners relied upon the provisions of Section 4 of the Travancore Cochin Interpretation & General Clauses Act 1125, envisaging the provision of repealment of the Act and the liabilities. It is contended that where any Act repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereinafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired. The aforementioned provisions of the Travancore Cochin Interpretation & General Clauses Act 1125 is in consonance with the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897. It was next contended that the expression “repeal” would be pari materia to the

¶110

WP(C)NO.23780/2016 & Conn. Cases

¶111

9

¶112

expression “amendment” as per the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagath Ram Sharma v. Union of

¶113

India and Others [1988 KHC 773].

¶114

On the other hand, learned State Counsel representing the respondents countered the argument of the petitioner and submitted that since the amendment came during th e currency o f the financial year, the amendment would relate back to the period when the brands were registered and petitioners are liable to pay the deficient amount, thus, the demand was wholly justified. In support of the aforementioned, provisions of sub-rules 7 and 8 of Rule 3 of 1995 Rules were relied, to contend that since the registration of the brand expired on 31^st March of the relevant year and notification revising the registering charges was promulgated on 30.03.2013, it would relate back to the period when the brands were registered. In other words, the breweries are liable to pay full fee for the whole year.

¶115

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books.

¶116

It is a conceded position on record that the petitioners

¶117

WP(C)NO.23780/2016 & Conn. Cases

¶118

¶119

are manufactures of the Indian Made Foreign Liquor and have also obtained the permission to manufacture of liquor in respect of a brand situated outside Kerala and for that purpose, sought the registration strictly in terms of provisions of Rule 3 of 1995 Rules. Rule 3 reads as under:

¶120

3. Registration of brand. -(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Kerala Distillery and Warehouse Rules, 1968, the Brewery Rules, 1967, the Kerala Winery Rules, 1970, the Foreign Liquor (Storage in Bond) Rules, 1961, the Kerala Foreign Liquor (Compounding, Blending and Bottling) Rules, 1975 and the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953, [any manufacturer of foreign liquor in the State or any manufacturer or bottler of foreign liquor elsewhere in India or abroad] who supplies foreign liquor to the Beverages Corporation, shall register the brand of foreign liquor manufactured by him or manufactured and supplied to the Beverages Corporation, as the case may be,

¶121

(2) The application for registration shall be made in Form No. RB I to the Commissioner of Excise through the Assistant Excise Commissioner after remitting a fee of Rs. [50,000/- Rupees fifty thousand only] by chalan, signed by him or his authorised agent, in the Government Treasury under the Head of Account "0039- 105-98 "State Excise" or any other Head of Account as may be notified by Government,

¶122

WP(C)NO.23780/2016 & Conn. Cases

¶123

11

¶124

[Provided that the fee in respect of those brands which are owned by distilleries outside the State and which are bottled in a distillery or compounding blending and bottling unit in the State of Kerala shall be [Rs. 2,00,000 (Rupees two lakhs only)].

¶125

(3) The Commissioner of Excise may reject any application for registration if it is found that,-

¶126

(i) his products has/have been black-listed by the Beverages, Corporation, or

¶127

(ii) he has been found guilty of any offence under the Act or the Rules made thereunder.

¶128

(4) In case the application is rejected, the fee collected for registration of brand shall be refunded.

¶129

(5) The permit issuing authorities shall issue transport/import/export permit only for those brands of Foreign Liquor already registered with the Commissioner.

¶130

(6) A Certificate of Registration in Form No. RB II appended to these rules shall be granted to the applicant in token of having registered the brand of foreign liquor with the Commissioner.

¶131

(7) The validity of registration shall expire on the 31st day of March of the relevant financial year:

¶132

¶133

WP(C)NO.23780/2016 & Conn. Cases

¶134

¶135

registration of the previous financial year kept in various Distilleries, Breweries, Wineries and Foreign Liquor Compounding and Blending Units by collecting a fee of Rs.25,000 for the said two months.

¶136

Provided further that the brand shall be registered as per rules, for the financial year to which the time is extended.]

¶137

(8) If the registration is made in the course of a financial year the full fee for the whole year shall be collected.

¶138

[(9) The Registration of Brand shall be allowed only after approval of the labels to the affixed on the bottles, by the Excise Commissioner on payment of the fees fixed by him in consultation with the Government, for approval of labels.]

¶139

7. The brands registered in respect of the buyers situated

¶140

outside the State of kerala had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in respect of financial year of 2012-2013. The notification revising the date was published on 30.03.2013. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:

¶141

“S.RO. No. 254/2013- In exercise of the powers conferred by sections 18A and 29 of the Abkari Act 1 of 1077, the Government of Kerala hereby make the following rules further to amend the Foreign Liquor (Registration of Brand) Rules, 1995 issued by notification under G. O. (P) No. 56/95/1D dated 22nd March, 1995 and published as S. R. O.

¶142

¶143

WP(C)NO.23780/2016 & Conn. Cases

¶144

No. 363/95 in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No-270 dated 22nd March, 1995, namely.-

¶145

RULES

¶146

Short title and commencement (i) These rules may be called the Foreign Liquor (Registration of Brand) Amendment Rules, 2013.

¶147

(2) They shall come into force at once.

¶148

Amendment of the Rules.- In the Foreign Liquor (Registration of Brand) Rules, 1995, in rule 3, in sub-rule (2), in the proviso, for the letters, figures, brackets and words Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One lakh only) the letters, figures, brackets and words Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lakhs) shall be substituted.

¶149

By order of the Governor,

¶150

A. Ajith KUMAR,

¶151

Secretary to Government.

¶152

Explanatory Note

¶153

(This does not form part of the notification, but is intended to indicate its general purport)

¶154

As per G. O. (Ms.) No.41/2013/TD dated 15th March, 2013, the Government have decided to increase the brand registration fee with respect to those brand which are owned by distilleries out side the State and winch are bottled in a distillery or compounding, blending and bottling unit in the State of Kerala. For the purpose, the Foreign Liquor (Registration of Brand) Rules, 1995 needs to be amended

¶155

The notification is intended to achieve the above object.”

¶156

WP(C)NO.23780/2016 & Conn. Cases

¶157

14

¶158

The plain and simple reading of the aforementioned provisions the notification did not contain any retroactive operation. As a consequence of the same, the reply of the petitioners to the demand was rejected constraining the petitioners to approach this Court. Provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, read with Section 4 of the Travancore Cochin Interpretation & General Clauses Act reads as under:

¶159

“Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897

¶160

(6) Effect of repeal:- Where this Act, or any [Central Act] or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not-

¶161

(a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or

¶162

(b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or

¶163

(c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or

¶164

(d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or

¶165

¶166

¶167

(e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act had not been passed.

¶168

Section 4 of the Travancore Cochin Interpretation & General Clauses Act

¶169

“(4) Effect of repeal:- Where any Act repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not-

¶170

(a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or

¶171

(b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or

¶172

(c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or

¶173

(d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or

¶174

(e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation,

¶175

¶176

16

¶177

liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act had not been passed.

¶178

On perusal of the above, it is evident that the expression “repeal” would not fasten the liability on a person who had already discharged the same at an earlier point of time. Concededly, petitioners paid the registration charge of the brands at the commencement of the financial year ie., in the month of April 2012. Even if the notificat ion is read as an amendment and in view of the findings rendered in paragraph 18 of the judgment in Bhagath Ram Sharma (supra), the amendment will be pari materia to the expression “repeal”.

¶179

Sub Rules 7 and 8 of Rule 3 reads thus:-

¶180

[(7) The validity of registration of brand shall be for a maximum period of one year, and the same shall expire on the 31st day of March of the relevant financial year. The Government may extend the said validity period, by a general or special order stating the reasons for such extension, if circumstances arises for the extension of the

¶181

WP(C)NO.23780/2016 & Conn. Cases

¶182

¶183

validity period of the brand registration.]

¶184

[Provided that a period of two months from the 31st day of March of the relevant financial year to the 31st May of the succeeding financial year may be allowed every year by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise of the Division concerned to clear the stock of foreign liquor with the brand registration of the previous financial year kept in various Distilleries, Breweries, Wineries and Foreign Liquor Compounding and Blending Units by collecting a fee of Rs.25,000 for the said two months.

¶185

[Provided further that the brand shall be registered as per rules, for the financial year to which the time is extended.]

¶186

[Provided also that if any circumstance warrants for the extension of validity of brand registration, the Government may, by a general or special order, allow Deputy Commissioner of Excise of the Division concerned to clear the stocks of liquor with the brand registration of the previous financial year kept in various distilleries, breweries, wineries and blending units by collecting a fee of Rs. 25,000 for such periods, as may be decided by the Government from time to time.]

¶187

(8) If the registration is made in the course of a financial year the full fee for the whole year shall be collected.

¶188

In the first blush, the argument of the Government Pleader

¶189

by looking at the provisions of sub-rules 7 and 8 looked attractive,

¶190

WP(C)NO.23780/2016 & Conn. Cases

¶191

18

¶192

but by reading the cumulative effect of the General Clauses Act viz. the notification and the Rules aforementioned, it is evident that the notification did not specify its applicability from the retrospective date as referred to in the provisions of sub-rules 7 and 8. Thus, in the absence of any specific clause, the demand of the respondents to collect the difference of registration charges in terms of the provisions of sub-rules 7 and 8 is wholly untenable, capricious and arbitrary.

¶193

In view of what has been stated above the impugned notices demanding enhanced fee are set aside. Writ petitions are allowed.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

nak

WP(C)NO.23780/2016 & Conn. Cases

¶199

¶200

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14286/2019

¶201

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶202

`EXHIBIT P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.3.2012` `ISSUED BY M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED` `NASIK.`
`EXHIBIT P1(A)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER` `NO.XC3.12303/12/K.DIS DATED 14.5.2012 OF` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.5.2012` `ISSUED BY M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITD,` `HOSPET.`
`EXHIBIT P2(A)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER` `NO.XC3.15410/12/K.DIS. DATED 13.6.2012 OF` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P2(B)`	`A TRUE COY OF THE ORDER` `NO.XC3.16940/12/K.DIS. DATED 9.7.2012 OF` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.3.2012` `ISSUED BY M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,` `KUMBALGODU.`
`EXHIBIT P3(A)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.XC3.16238/12` `DATED 27.6.2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.11.2012` `ISSUED BY M/S. MANDOVI DISTILLERIES AND` `BREWERIES.`
`EXHIBIT P4(A)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER` `NO.XC3.30701/12/K.DIS. DATED 23.11.2012` `OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED` `19.11.2012 ISSUED BY M/S. MANDOVI`

¶203

¶204

¶205

DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES.

¶206

EXHIBIT P5(A)A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.7.2012
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶207

EXHIBIT P6A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)57/2013/TD
DATED 30.3.2013 PUBLISHED AS SRO
NO.254/2013 IN THE KERALA GAZETTE
EXTRAORDINARY NO.917 DATED 30.3.2013.
EXHIBIT P7A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.EDB 02/2019
DATED 8.5.2019 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
18.7.2016 IN WPC 23780/2016.
EXHIBIT P8(A)A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
7.11.2016 IN WPC 23780/2016 EXTENDING P8
ORDER UNTIL FURTHER ORDERS.

¶208

WP(C)NO.23780/2016 & Conn. Cases

¶209

¶210

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7025/2017

¶211

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶212

`EXHIBIT P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.XC38037/12/K` `DIS.DATED 30.3.2012 OF THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER` `NO.XC3.14707/12/K.DIS.DATED 12.6.2012 OF` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.6.2012` `OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER` `NO.XC3.16755/12/K. DIS. DATED 9.7.2012 OF` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.10.2012` `OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) 57/2013/TD` `DATED 30.3.2013 PUBLISHED AS SRO` `NO.254/2013 IN THE KERALA GAZETTE` `EXTRAORDINARY NO.917 DATED 30.3.2013.`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.USL-` `01/2016 DATED 12.12.2016 OF THE 3RD` `RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED` `16.12.2016.`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED` `18.7.2016 IN WPC 23780/2016.`
`EXHIBIT P9(A)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED` `7.11.2016 IN WPC 23780/2016 EXTENDING P9` `ORDER UNTIL FURTHER ORDERS.`

¶213

WP(C)NO.23780/2016 & Conn. Cases

¶214

¶215

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7611/2017

¶216

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶217

`EXHIBIT`	`P1` `A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER` `NO.XC.3.8563/12/K.DIS. DATED 30.03.2012` `OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2` `A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER` `NO.XC.3.15582/12/K.DIS. DATED 20.06.2012` `OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3` `A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER` `NO.XC.3.21691/12/K.DIS. DATED 17.08.2012` `OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4` `A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER` `NO.XC.3.9464/12/K.DIS. DATED 10.04.2012` `OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5` `A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER` `NO.XC.3.10055/12/K.DIS. DATED 17.04.2012` `OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT`	`P6` `A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER` `NO.XC.3.23299/12/K.DIS. DATED 12.09.2012` `OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT`	`P7` `A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER` `NO.XC.3.24364/12/K.DIS. DATED 18.09.2012` `OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT`	`P8` `A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER` `NO.XC.3.22541/12/K.DIS. DATED 03.09.2012` `OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT`	`P9` `A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER` `NO.XC.3.15858/12/K.DIS. DATED 27.06.2012` `OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT`

¶218

¶219

¶220

`EXHIBIT P10`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO.XC.3.22380/12/K` `OF THE 2ND RESPONDE`	`ORDER` `.DIS. DATED 04.09.2012` `NT`
`EXHIBIT P11`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO.XC.3.32000/12/K.` `OF THE 2ND RESPONDE`	`ORDER` `DIS. DATED 21.12.2012` `NT`
`EXHIBIT P12`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO.XC.3.14573/12/K.` `OF THE 2ND RESPONDE`	`ORDER` `DIS. DATED 08.09.2012` `NT`
`EXHIBIT P13`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO.XC.3.12662/12/K.` `OF THE 2ND RESPONDE`	`ORDER` `DIS. DATED 18.05.2012` `NT`
`EXHIBIT P14`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO.XC.3.18352/12/K.` `OF THE 2ND RESPONDE`	`ORDER` `DIS. DATED 23.07.2012` `NT.`
`EXHIBIT P15`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO.XC.3.23815/12/K.` `OF THE 2ND RESPONDE`	`ORDER` `DIS. DATED 12.09.2012` `NT.`
`EXHIBIT P16`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 30.03.2013 PU` `NO.254/2013 IN THE` `EXTRAORDINARY NO.91`	`G.O(P) 57/2013/TD` `BLISHED AS SRO` `KERALA GAZETTE` `7 DATED 30.3.2013`
`EXHIBIT P17`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `12.02.2016 OF THE 3`	`DEMAND DATED` `RD RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P18`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `18.07.2016 IN WPC 2`	`INTERIM ORDER DATED` `3780/2016`
`EXHIBIT P18(A)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `07.11.2016 IN WPC 2` `ORDER UNTIL FURTHER`	`INTERIM ORDER DATED` `3780/2016 EXTENDING P7` `ORDERS.`

¶221

WP(C)NO.23780/2016 & Conn. Cases

¶222

¶223

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23564/2017

¶224

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶225

EXHIBIT P1A TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORIZATION LETTER
DATED 28.03.2012.
EXHIBIT P2A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
28.3.12.
EXHIBIT P2(A)A TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN DATED
28.03.2012 EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF
RS.100,000/ FOR REGISTRATION OF THE BRAND
OF 'SNJ NO.1 XO PREMIUM BRANDY'.
EXHIBIT P3A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED
28.03.2012 FOR REGISTRATION OF THE BRAND
OF 'ACTIVATOR PURE VANILA VODKA'.
EXHIBIT P3(A)A TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN DATED
28.03.2012 EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF RS.
100,000/ FOR REGISTRATION OF THE BRAND OF
'ACTIVATOR PURE VANILA VODKA'.
EXHIBIT P4A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
28.03.2012 FOR REGISTRATION OF THE BRAND
OF 'OLD CHEF SUPERIOR VSOP BRANDY'.
EXHIBIT P4(A)A TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN DATED
28.03.2012 FOR EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF RS.
100,000/ FOR REGISTRATION OF THE BRAND OF
'OLD CHEF SUPERIOR VSOP BRANDY'.
EXHIBIT P5A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
28.03.2012 FOR REGISTRATION OF THE BRAND
OF 'TOP STAR SELECT XXX RUM'.
EXHIBIT P5(A)A TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN DATED
28.03.2012 FOR EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF RS.
100,000/ FOR REGISTRATION OF THE BRAND OF
'TOP STAR SELECT XXX RUM'.

¶226

¶227

¶228

EXHIBIT P6A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.XC.3.9023/12/K. DIS. DATED 03.04.2012
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)57/2013/TD
DATED 30.03.2013 PUBLISHED AS SRO
NO.254/2013 IN THE KERALA GAZETTE
EXTRAORDINARY NO.917 DATED 30.3.2013.
EXHIBIT P8A TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT OBJECTION DATED
05.12.2015.
EXHIBIT P9A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
15.12.2015 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
22.12.2015.
EXHIBIT P11A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
29.06.2017 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
02.03.2017 IN WPC 7025/2017.

¶229

WP(C)NO.23780/2016 & Conn. Cases

¶230

¶231

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24251/2016

¶232

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶233

EXHIBIT P1COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 31.3.2012.
EXHIBIT P2COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 17.5.2016.
EXHIBIT P3COPY OF SR NO.254/13 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 30.3.2013.

¶234

WP(C)NO.23780/2016 & Conn. Cases

¶235

¶236

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23780/2016

¶237

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶238

`EXHIBIT P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 10/8/2012`	`AUTHORIZATION LETTER`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `10/8/2012 FOR REGIS` `LOUIS VERNANT XO BL`	`APPLICATION DATED` `TRATION OF THE BRAND OF` `ENDED PREMIUM BRANDY.`
`EXHIBIT P2(A)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `10/8/2012 FOR REGIS` `SINATURE RARE AGED`	`APPLICATION DATED` `TRATION OF THE BRAND OF` `WHISKY.`
`EXHIBIT P2(B)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `10/8/2012 FOR REGIS` `CEASER GENUINE GRAP`	`APPLICATION DATED` `TRATION OF THE BRAND OF` `E BRANDY.`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 13/8/2012 OF` `OF EXCISE.`	`LETTER NO.A2-4785/12` `THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 22/8/2012 OF`	`ORDER NO.XC3.21717/12/K.` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `30/3/2013 PUBLISHED` `THE KERALA EXTRAORD` `30/3/2013.`	`G.O.(P) 57/2013/TD DATED` `AS SRO NO.254/2013 IN` `INARY NO.917 DATED`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `13/2016 DATED 23/4/` `RESPONDENT`	`DEMAND NOTICE NO.USL-` `2016 OF THE 3RD`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE`	`LETTER DATED 27/4/2016`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 10/6/2016 OF`	`LETTER NO.USL-13/2016` `THE 3RD RESPONDENT`

T.R.Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.R.Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

George Dominic Vs the Provident Fund Commissioner

Kerala State Umbrella Manufacturers Association, Vs Union of India

Bank of Baroda Vs the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court

Sindu George Vs State of Kerala

Haneefa Vs Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector

M.O. Jose Vs Union of India