IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10042 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. N.S.LENIN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN (LATE), NADUVILEPARAMBIL HOUSE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. M.S.SANJAYKUMAR,S/O.SUBRAMANIAN (LATE), MONATHOTTATHIL HOUSE, PERIYARAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. T.R.PRAJEESH, S/O.T.K.RAJAN, THAYYIL HOUSE, KUZHIKKATTUSSERY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. P.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O.SUDHEENDRAN, PONATHIL HOUSE,EDATHURUTHY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRTY, TAXES, [A] DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASST.EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THRISSUR. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 10042/2008 -------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 PHOTO COPY OF NOTIFICATION DT. 27-4-2005 EXT.P2 NOTIFICATION DT. 9-3-2006. EXT.P3 NOTICE DT. 22-3-2008. EXT.P4 ABKARI POLICY DT. 13-2-2009. EXT.P5 TODY SHOP LICENCE. EXT.P6 GOVERNMENT ORDER DT. 18-3-2006. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. 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/