K P S ELANGO Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR SALEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both these writ petitions, the petitioner as well as the respondents are one and the same and relief sought for as well as the grounds are identical, hence, they are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is as follows: the petitioner has participated in the auction conducted by the third respondent herein pursuant to tender notification dated 11. 07. 2006 for rearing finger lings and fishing right in S. Papparapatti Lake, Attayampatti Taluk, salem District and offered the highest amount of rs. 4,55,000/- and the auction was confirmed in his favour. In the tender notification dated 11. 07. 2006 issued by the third respondent, it is mentioned that the licence renewable every year on enhancement of 10% amount for a further period of five years, which clause was incorporated taking into consideration of the reality that the person, who is successful has to rear finger lings, which normally take one year, thereafter only, it gradually ready for harvest. While so, the third respondent issued notices dated 12. 12. 2006 and 30. 03. 2007 calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 4,05,520/- towards balance bid amount, sales tax @ 12% and surcharge for which the petitioner has sent a reply letter dated 30. 03. 2007 stating that as per third Schedule Part B Entry 26 (i) of the Tamil Nadu General sales Tax Act, 1959, fish is exempted from the purview of sales tax, but without considering the same or renewing the licence, the third respondent has issued fresh tender notification dated 11. 06. 2007 calling for fresh tender in respect of the said Papparapatti lake, which was challenged in WP No. 21056 of 2007. WP No. 22620 of 2007 has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to renew the lease in terms of condition No. 1 of auction Notice dated 11. 07. 2006 in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the contents of the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions and submitted that third respondent called upon the petitioner to pay sales tax @ 12% and surcharge @ 20% for the licence period, which is contrary to third Schedule Part B Entry 26 (i) of the Tamil Nadu General sales Tax Act, 1959 in which fish is exempted from the purview of sales tax, hence, the petitioner is not liable to pay the amounts demanded under the said heading by the respondents, however, the third respondent insisted him to pay the said amount, hence, the petitioner was constrained to file WP No. 22601 of 2007, which was allowed by this court on 27. 08. 2007 setting aside the proceedings of the third respondent dated 12. 12. 2006 to the extent it levies sales tax at 12% and surcharge at 20%. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the third respondent, without waiting for the disposal of WP No. 22601 of 2007 or renewing the licence has issued fresh tender notification dated 11. 06. 2007 and prayed for allowing of both the writ petitions.