2008 (4) TMI 796 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of G.O.(P) No.88/2000/TD dated 2.6.2000 regarding waiver of interest.
2. Adjustment of the amount collected by the department towards the respondent's liability.
3. Compliance with conditions precedent for availing benefits under Rule 25A.
4. Validity of the Revenue Recovery Notice dated 4.4.2002.
5. Jurisdictional error in the High Court's judgment.

Summary:

Issue 1: Interpretation of G.O.(P) No.88/2000/TD dated 2.6.2000 regarding waiver of interest:
The Supreme Court examined the interpretation of the Government Order (G.O.) dated 2.6.2000, which provided for a waiver of up to 75% interest on defaulted revenue under the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 1974. The Court noted that Rule 25A, introduced by the notification, contained a non-obstante clause providing a legal entitlement to licensees, subject to two conditions precedent: payment of taxes and duties with reduced interest by 31.8.2000, and submission of an application by 15.7.2000.

Issue 2: Adjustment of the amount collected by the department towards the respondent's liability:
The respondent's license was canceled on 13.8.1993, and the department managed the shop, collecting Rs. 31,49,288/- during the period 31.8.1993 to 31.3.1994. The respondent sought credit for this amount towards their liability, which was initially denied. The High Court directed that the amount collected be adjusted towards the respondent's liability, and the Supreme Court upheld this adjustment, stating that the amount should have been adjusted as on 1.4.1994.

Issue 3: Compliance with conditions precedent for availing benefits under Rule 25A:
The respondent's representation for waiver of interest was rejected as it was filed after the stipulated date. However, the Supreme Court observed that the respondent could not comply with the conditions due to the pendency of the writ petition, which was decided on 11.8.2000. The Court held that substantial compliance with procedural provisions should suffice, and the High Court did not commit any jurisdictional error in granting the benefit of the notification.

Issue 4: Validity of the Revenue Recovery Notice dated 4.4.2002:
The Revenue Recovery Notice demanded Rs. 83,26,344/- with future interest at 18% per annum. The respondent challenged this notice, and the High Court directed the Commissioner to grant amnesty benefits with specific terms. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's directions, emphasizing that the demand should be based on the adjusted amount, not the entire amount initially claimed.

Issue 5: Jurisdictional error in the High Court's judgment:
The Supreme Court found no jurisdictional error in the High Court's judgment. The Court reiterated the principle "Lex non cogit ad impossibillia," meaning that no one can be compelled to perform an impossible act. The procedural requirements were deemed directory, and the respondent's inability to comply due to pending litigation was considered valid.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment and directing the appellants to adjust the collected amount and recalculate the liability. The appeal was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.