TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e period 31.8.1993 to 31.3.1994 The Department had collected a total sum of ₹ 31,49,288/- towards Abkari dues. On the premise that the said amount should be adjusted from the total liability of the first respondent, a dispute arose between the parties herein as no credit was given in respect of the said amount of ₹ 31,49,288/-. A writ petition was filed by the first respondent which was allowed by a judgment and order dated 11.8.2000 whereby and whereunder it was directed that the amount collected would be adjusted towards liability due from the appellant. The question, however, which arose for consideration was as to whether till the entire amount was adjusted, the first respondent was liable to pay any interest thereupon or not. By reason of the Government Order dated 2.6.2000, the State of Kerala granted time to the defaulters to deposit the due amount of duty only with interest of 25%, wherefor Rule 25A was introduced in the Rule. 4. First respondent sought the benefit of the said Government Order which was denied to him on the premise that he had not complied with the conditions precedent therefor. 5. By reason of an order dated 14.12.2001, the representation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration that exemption from payment of interest could be directed only in the event the entire amount was paid in terms the notification by 2.6.2000 and in view of the fact that the first respondent failed to deposit the said amount by the said date, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. 9. Mr. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, would support the judgment. 10. The sole question which, thus, arises for our consideration in this appeal is the application of Rule 25A of Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction Rules) Amendment Rules, 2000. It reads thus : 25A. Reduction of interest in certain cases (i) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule or any other rules made under the Abkari Act 1 of 1077 or in any judgment, decree or order of any court, the persons who are in arrears to pay rentals, taxes duties or other amount under this rules as on 31st day of March, 1997 shall be entitled to a reduction of 75% of the amount of interest accrued on such rentals, taxes, duties or other amounts as the case may be. Provided that the entire arrears of rental, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endency of the said writ petition, a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- was also deposited. What was, therefore, urged in the aforementioned representation dated 12.9.2001 for grant of proportionate deduction in the kist as also interest thereupon. First Appellant, however, was of the opinion that the waiver of interest as per the said scheme having already expired and the respondents having not filed any application before the said authority within the stipulated time, it was impermissible to grant the benefit of the said Rule to the respondent, stating : The petitioners had already executed permanent agreement as per Rule 5(15) of the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 1974 and agreed to remit the duty on monthly designated quantum of rectified spirit 6400 litres per month @ 25.73 per litr. Hence they are legally bound to pay the duty on designated quantum of rectified spirit. The above shops were placed under Department Management due to the non payment of Kist in time and D.M. arrangements made at the risk of the Original purchasers. The petitioners prayer that D.M. amounts are to be accounted towards the arrears on the date of remittance made by the D.M. agent itse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .8.2000. In terms of the said judgment, the appellant 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 challenged before the Division Bench. A SLP therefrom to this Court also failed. 15. If the benefit of the said notification could not be availed of by the respondents because of the pendency of the writ petition, in our opinion, the High Court cannot be said to have committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment. 16. Lex non cogit ad impossibillia is a well known maxim which means that nobody can be asked to do a thing which is impossible to be performed. Rule 25A confers a right. How the said right is to be exercised is a matter of procedure. The procedural provisions are normally directory and not imperative. A substantial compliance of the procedural provisions ordinarily would subserve the purpose and object for which the same has been made. 17. A sum becomes due only when it is definite and only when a demand therefor is made. If no demand could legally be made from the respondents for the entire sum as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
