IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10042 of 2008(U)
1. N.S.LENIN, AGED 46 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. M.S.SANJAYKUMAR,S/O.SUBRAMANIAN (LATE),
3. T.R.PRAJEESH, S/O.T.K.RAJAN, THAYYIL
4. P.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O.SUDHEENDRAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRTY,
... Respondent
2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
3. THE ASST.EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THRISSUR.
4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.
For Petitioner :SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :02/04/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 10042 of 2008
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 2nd April, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
During the year 2005-06, in auctions conducted for sale of toddy
shops in Vatanappally Excise Range in Thrissur Division, there were
no takers. Therefore, the Government decided to relax conditions for
auction and Ext.P1 Government order was passed, wherein relaxed
conditions for auction were laid down. In accordance with the relaxed
conditions, the petitioners participated in the auction and was granted
licence. One of the relaxations was that the licensee would be
exempted from payment of tree tax. Thereafter, there was no auction
for 2006-07. The Government directed that the Excise policy for the
year 2005-06 will continue for the year 2006-07 also. Accordingly, the
petitioners’ licence was renewed for 2006-07 also. The petitioners did
not pay any tree tax since, according to them , the renewal of licence
was also on the same conditions as for the previous year. However, to
the surprise of the petitioners, now the petitioners have been served
with recovery notice for recovery of tree tax for the years 2005-06 and
2006-07. The petitioners are challenging the same. Ext.P3 is the
recovery notice received by the petitioners in that regard. The
petitioners are challenging the same.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents
1 to 5, in which it is admitted that the petitioners are not liable to pay
tree tax for the year 2005-06. But the respondents have taken a stand
that for the year 2006-07 since there was no exemption from tree tax
granted, the petitioners are liable to pay tree tax for that year.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
4. The petitioners were originally granted licence for the
W.P.C. No. 10042/08 -: 2 :-
year 2005-06. Admittedly, after grating exemption from tree tax
the very same policy continued for the year 2006-07 also and the
petitioners’ licence was renewed as the holder of the licence for the
previous year. The petitioners had never been informed that such
renewal of licence is with the condition that they would be liable to
pay tree tax. When licence is renewed, it must be presumed that such
renewal is on the same terms and conditions as for the previous year.
If that be so, the same exemption applicable to the licence for the
2005-06 licence, is applicable to 2006-07 also. In that view, I am
satisfied that the petitioners cannot be made to pay tree tax for the
years 2005-06 and 2006-07.
Accordingly, Ext.P3 is quashed. It is declared that the
petitioners cannot be denied the preferential right for getting
allotment of the said toddy shop as per clause 11 of the Abkari Policy
for the year 2008-09 on the ground that the petitioner have not paid
tree tax for the years 2005-06 and 2006-07. The petitioners would be
entitled to all consequential benefits of such declaration in respect of
the licence for the year 2009-2010, if the petitioners are otherwise
eligible for the same.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/