The liability for paying kist/rent arises from the date of issuing the license, as established by legal precedent and rules governing excise auctions.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 3rd respodent herein Na.Ka.No.108/1986, dated 03.11.2009 and Na.Ka.No.108/1986 dated 19.04.2010 and the proceedings of the 2nd respondent herein Na.Ka.no. 113112/1988/Prohibitions, 3 dated 16.11.2010 in respect of Arrack Shop No.8/1983-84, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District and quash the same and consequently or recovering the said amount by resorting the to Revenue Recovery proceedings as against the assets of the petitioner herein.)

1. This writ petition is filed as against the proceedings of the 3rd respondent / The Divisional Excise Officer, Madurai dated 03.11.2009 and 19.04.2010 and the proceedings of the second respondent / The Assistant Commissioner (Excise) in Na.Ka.No.108/1986 dated 16.11.2010.

2. The impugned notices were issued as a demand notice calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,16,900/- as the arrears of kist/rent for the Arrack shop No.8/83-83 at Ismailpuram, Madurai South.

3. The Excise Department has conducted a public auction for the Arrack shop for the excise year 16.07.1983 to 15.07.1984. The auction was conducted on 03.06.1983. The petitioner had participated in the auction and made a bid for the Arrack Shop No.8/83-84 at Ismailpuram, Madurai South for Rs.1,33,000/- as kist / rent. The auction was confirmed on 15.06.1983 and as per the terms of tender notice, the auction purchaser should remit the rent in advance as required under Rule 16 of Tamil Nadu Toddy and Arrack Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 1981 and should select an unobjectionable site as required under the Tamil Nadu Arrack (Retail Shops) Rules, 1981. The petitioner has identified a shop in Door No.78, East Mart Street, Madurai and applied for license in Form No.II. However the same was not accepted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai that the shop does not satisfy the distant rule in respect of a private hospital. As against the same the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition before this court in WP.No.8241 of 1983 and this court had entertained the writ petition and granted an order of interim stay on 14.09.1983 and directed the respondents to issue temporary license to the petitioner to run the Arrack Shop at No.78, East Mart Street, Madurai. Pursuant to the order of this court a temporary license was granted to the petitioner by the respondents on 27.10.1983. However, the same was challenged by a Doctor by a way of Writ Appeal in WA.No.1011 of 1983 and a Hon''ble Division Bench of this court granted an order of interim injunction. The Revenue Divisional Officer by order dated 19.11.1983 cancelled the license issued to the petitioner and that was challenged by way an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner by order dated 04.02.1984. As against the same the the petitioner filed a writ petition in WP.No.1543 of 1984 and the same was also dismissed and challenging the same, the petitioner filed an appeal in WA.Nos.208 and 209 of 1984, wherein the Hon''ble Division Bench of this court by order dated 01.03.1984 directed the authorities to issue license within a week and thereafter a license was granted to the petitioner from the period 01.03.1984. The petitioner paid the kist amount for the said period. While so the 3rd respondent by his proceedings dated 19.07.1994 issued a demand notice for a sum of Rs.10,16,900/- as arrears of kist for the period from 15.07.1983 to 1.03.1984. The petitioner challenged the same in WP.No.15972 of 1994 and it was allowed by this Court by order dated 19.06.2001 and directed the authorities to consider the objections of this petitioner. The respondents after providing opportunity passed the impugned demand orders reiterating the earlier demand dated 19.07.1994. Therefore the petitioner once again approached this court as against the demand notices.

4. The learned Senior couns