According to the comments and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties lease for collection of Export Tax/Goods Exit Tax in this case was auctioned on 23-7-1.995, whereas the lease period was from 1-7-1995 to 30-6-1996. The petitioner turned out to be the highest bidder.
Intimation about acceptance of his bid was given to him through letter dated 3-8-1995. He was required to deposit an amount of Rs.56,77,597. This amount has admittedly been deposited.
Learned counsel for respondents says that the said amount was not deposited within the time fixed in the terms and conditions of the auction which required the payment of the said amount within three days of the date of acceptance of the bid. He when questioned, however, admitted that the Zila Council did not either cancel the bid or confiscated the amount so far deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of its right under the terms and conditions of the lease though it could do so due to this late deposit but instead the Zila Council had been receiving monthly instalment up to October, 1995.
2. Since the Zila Council did not opt to cancel the bid and confiscate the amounts already deposited by the petitioner and instead continued receiving the monthly instalment according to the highest bid till October, 1995 the respondents shall be deemed to have decided to keep the contract alive.
3. In view of the above circumstances the petitioner shall be deemed to have been given possession to collect the Export Tax on 3-8-1995, therefore whatever amount had already been collected by the Zila Council itself or under l the supervision of the petitioner, as the case may be, from 3-8-1995 to 13-9-1995 the same shall be paid to the petitioner and the petitioner shall be liable to pay the instalment from 3-8-1995. The collections made from 1-7-1995 to 2-8-1995 by the Zila Council shall be retained by it and for the said period the petitioner shall not be liable to pay instalment.
4. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.