RAMAYYAMMA Vs. KAMALAKARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an excise contractor for Madanapalle and Tham- ballapalle group of shops, calls in question the instructions issued by the Superintendent of Excise, Chitloor (2nd respondent) to the Excise Sub- Inspector, Madanapalle, Chittoor district (3rd respondent) contained in Re. No. A3/418/82 dated 11-2-1982 calling upon him to collect 50% of the tax due on the trees allotted to the shops by the end of April, 1982 and 70% of the tax due in respect of the trees allotted to the group of shops by the end of July, 1982. Pursuant to the said instructions, the petitioner was issued a notice by the 3rd respondent on 2-5-1982 calling upon him to tap the trees and pay 50% of the tax due on the trees allotted to this group of shops. This action was taken pursuant to the general instructions issued by the Commissioner of Excise (1st respondent) in his circular letter No. 46987/Ex./8l/El, dated 23-10-1981, under which he directed the collection of tree tax in respect of the trees allotted to the various excise contractors in the State. It is the case of the petitioner that he is both the arrack and toddy contractor for Madanapalle and Thamballapalle group of shops and that he is paying monthly rentals for both the arrack and toddy shops regularly, the monthly rental for the arrack shops being Rs. 4,02,000/- and for the toddy shops Rs. 3,116/-. He states that, though he is paying rental for the toddy shops, he is not able to effect any sale of toddy for the last two or three years, since no one is interested in toddy while arrack is available. He further states that, since there is no consumption of toddy he is not tapping the trees and that, therefore, he is not liable to pay tree tax, as now demanded by the respondents. He asserts that the liability to pay tree tax arises only when he applies to the Excise Authorities to number the trees for purposes of tapping them and not merely because he has obtained a licence for the toddy shops.

(2.) We are unable to agree with this contention. There is no dispute that the demand now made is in respect of trees allotted to this particular group of toddy shops of which the petitioner is a licensee for the year 1981-82. There is also no dispute that he has not paid any tree tax in respect of any trees allotted to this group of shops. Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Tapping of Trees & Toddy ShopsSpecial Conditions of Licence) Rules, 1969, which deals with payment of the tree tax and tree owners rent by the licensee, reads as follows:

(3.) These rules are framed in exercise of the powers conferred on the Government under Sec. 72 of the ANDHRA PRADESH EXCISE ACT, 1968. A reading of the above rules makes it clear that the liability to pay the tree tax at such rates as may be notified by the Government is imposed upon the licensee. The licensee is also liable to pay the tree owners rent at such rates as may be notified from time to time both in respect of trees standing on the Government lands as well as on private lands. Unless the owner, on whose lands there are toddy or sendhi trees, makes an application under the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Intimation of Unwillingness to tap the exc ise trees) Rules, 1974 intimating the Excise Superintendent not later than the date notified by the Excise Superintendent in the prescribed form that he is not willing to allow the tapping of trees standing on his lands, the Excise Authorities shall have the right to allot the same for such shops as they deem fit. The trees having been allotted to a particular shop, the Excise Authorities are prohibited from allotting the said trees to any other shop. The licensee of that particular shop gels the exclusive right to tap the trees allotted to his shop on payment of the tree tax and, if there are trees standing on a private land, on payment of the owners rent to the tree-owner. The liability imposed under Rule 9 of the said rules to pay tree tax or tree owners rent is made dependent upon such allotment of the trees. That liability is incurred by him when, as a condition of the auction of the leasehold rights, the shop is offered for a particular excise year and a particu'ar bidder becomes the highest bidder and the bid is knocked down in his name and he obtains a licence for that shop. All these steps have been duly taken and the petitioner has become a licensee and being a licensee of the group of shops to which the trees are allotted, be has incurred the liability to pay tree tax and tree owners rent for the exercise year 1981-82. Even if the assertion of the petitioner that there is no demand for toddy in the area and that he has been selling only arrack and has not been able to run the toddy shops, is true, still, in our opinion, that does not absolve him of the liability to pay the tree tax. No doubt, as contended by Sri K.V. Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, elaborate rules have been framed as to how an application for numbering the trees before they are tapped is to be made, the amount of tree tax to be paid for numbering the trees before they are actually tapped. But that is only a procedure devised for collection of tax to pay which the liability was incurred when a person became a licensee. No provision has been brought to our notice which entitles the petitioner to deny the payment of tree tax on the ground that he has not actually applied for numbering the trees for the purpose of tapping them. The mere fact that the licensee is enabled to pay the tax as and when he applies for tapping by itself does not absolve him of the liability imposed upon him by Rule 9 to pay tree tax. That liability is attracted no sooner than he became a licensee in accordance with the terms and conditions of the auction and the terms and conditions of the licence issued to him. May be, a further licence to tap the trees is issued when he applies for numbering the trees and pays the tax. That is only an authorisation to enable him to show as and when he proceeds to tap the trees. The procedure envisaged by Rules 11, 12 13 and 14 relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, which is intended to regulate the numbering and tapping of trees on payment of tree tax, cannot be so read as to absolve the liability imposed by Rule 9. This is made much more clear by Rule 14, which lays down that, even if there is a shortage in the number of trees available for tapping after they are allotted to a particular shop, the licensee of that shop is not entitled to claim any remission of rental much more so can he claim exemption from payment of tret tax. "Excise Revenue", as defined in Sec. 2 (12) of the Act, includes tax and rent payable under the Act or any other law for the time being in force relating to intoxicating liquors or intoxicating drugs and that definition clearly includes tree tax and tree owners rent. Under Section 65 of the Act, all excise revenue is recoverable as arrears of land revenue. That being the position, the instructions issued by the Commisssoner of Excise, the Excise Superintendent and the Excise Sub-Inspector calling upon the petitioner to pay the tree lax are unexceptionable.