IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2009 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9919 of 2009(H) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- P.A. VELAYUDHAN, CONVENOR, KALLU CHETHU VYAVASAYA THOZHILALI SAMYUKTA SAMITHI, MALA RANGE, MALA - 680 732. BY MR.N.NAGARESH, ADVOCATE. MR.BINU PAUL, ADVOCATE. MR.T.V.VINU, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO TAXES (G) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM. 2. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THRISSUR. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 5. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), MUKUNDAPURAM. BY MS. K.R. DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2009, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) No.9943/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C)Nos.9919 & 9943 OF 200 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT In the year 2002- 2003, during auction of toddy shops, there were no takers for toddy shops in Mala Range and Chalakudy Range. In view of the particular circumstances, the Government issued Ext.P1 order, whereby in such cases the auction was permitted granting exemption from tree tax and other similar concessions. Accordingly, the toddy shops were allotted to the petitioners in these two writ petitions granting them exemption from payment of tree tax. The licence, issued with exemption from tree tax, was renewed from year to year till 2006-2007. The petitioners, enjoying the exemption granted were not paying tree tax also. The Government did not raise any objection regarding the same. However, now revenue recovery notices have been issued to the petitioners for recovery of arrears of tree tax with interest for the year 2004-2005. The petitioners are challenging those revenue recovery notices. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. W.P.(c)No.9919/09 & Con.case 2 3. The learned Government Pleader would contend that in so far as the exemption was granted only for the year 2002-2003, the petitioners cannot claim exemption for subsequent years. But at the same time, the learned Government Pleader admits that while renewing the licence for subsequent years, no communication was given to the petitioners to the effect that such renewal was with a condition that exemption from tree tax as for previous year would not be available. Once the licence is renewed in favour of the previous licensee without auction, it should be assumed that such renewal was on the same terms and conditions for the previous year. If the petitioners were made aware of the fact that they were not entitled to exemption from tree tax, perhaps they may not have continued to run the toddy shops. That being so, I am of opinion that the respondents cannot now recover tree tax from the petitioners for the said periods. In the above circumstances, the impugned orders are quashed. The writ petitions are allowed as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.9919/09 & Con.case 3