Maramon Hotel And Resort Pvt. Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Excise

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7736 Ker
Judgement Date : 28 June, 2022

Kerala High Court
Maramon Hotel And Resort Pvt. Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Excise on 28 June, 2022
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
  TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1944
                     WP(C) NO. 20830 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

            MARAMON HOTEL AND RESORT PVT. LTD.,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
            SUJITH SOMAN,
            MARAMON P. O.,
            PATHANAMTHITTA,
            PIN - 689 549.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI. P. MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
            SRI. K. SUDHINKUMAR
            SRI. S.K. ADHITHYAN
            SRI. SABU PULLAN
            SRI. GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN
            SRI. K.P. SATHEESAN (SR.)


RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
            OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
            PATHANAMTHITTA,
            PIN - 689 645.
    2       THE EXCISE INSPECTOR
            EXCISE RANGE OFFICE,
            THIRUVALLA,
            PATHANAMTHITTA,
            PIN - 689 101.

            SRI. V. K. SUNIL - SR. GP



     THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON   28.06.2022,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.20830 OF 2022

                                2




                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner is holding FL-3 licence No.PTA- 17/2021-22. The 2nd respondent inspected the petitioner-hotel and its premises on 07.08.2021 and freezed 96 cases of liquor and stored the same in the store room of the hotel itself. Ext.P1 is the inspection report prepared by the 2nd respondent.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in Ext.P1, no irregularities are noted during inspection. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not permitted to sell the liquor freezed pursuant to Ext.P1 and due to efflux of time, the liquor has become useless. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed Exts.P2 and P3 representations before the 1st respondent requesting either to give credit note to the value of the liquor or to replace WP(C).No.20830 OF 2022 3 the same by new liquor. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent has not so far responded to Exts.P2 and P3 representations. The limited prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the said representations.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions made across the Bar, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Exts.P2 and P3, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits WP(C).No.20830 OF 2022 4 of Exts.P2 and P3 pending before the 1st respondent.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SPR WP(C).No.20830 OF 2022 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT PREPARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 07-08- 2021.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23-10-2021.

EXHIBIT P2 ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P2. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS DATED 03-05-2022.

EXHIBIT P3 ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P3.

     RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:     NIL.