Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 59787
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A. Abdul Hakhim, J
Indo Scottish Brand (Pvt.) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 869 OF 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Raju K. Mathews, Joseph Raju Mathews
For the Respondents: Jasmine V.H.
A demand for additional security from distilleries is unsustainable and must be set aside if the government has officially withdrawn the policy governing such demands.
Headnote:(A) Excise Law - Security Deposit - Demand for additional security - Policy withdrawal - Where the Government admits that the policy for demanding additional security from distilleries has been withdrawn and the demand is unsustainable, the impugned demand notices are liable to be set aside. (Para 3, 4)
Issues: Whether the demand for additional security from the petitioner's distillery was sustainable.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.09.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Exts.P25, P30, P31, P32 & P33 demanding additional security and seeking direction to the Respondents not to interfere with the functioning of the distillery of the Petitioner on the ground that the demand for additional security is not met bythe Petitioner.
2. When this matter was taken up for consideration on07.07.2026, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the Petitioner as per the Judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.2594/2018 and the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructionsregarding that.
3. Today, the learned Government Pleader confirmed that thesaid Judgment is in favour of the Petitioner and the demand for additional security is unsustainable. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the Government has already withdrawn the policy for demanding additionalsecurity from the distilleries.
4. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside theimpugned demand notices and directing the Respondents not to interfere with the functioning of the distillery of the Petitioner on the ground of non-payment of additionalsecurity on the basis of excise duty.
