Judgment :- The petitioner has sought for a Writ of Certiorari to quash G.O.Ms. No. 81 dated 4. 2004 issued by the 1st respondent and the consequential proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.Va.Pa.15/97/J1 dated 15. 2005. 2. Facts of the case, as deduced from the affidavit are as follows: The petitioner was the successful bidder of Arrack Shop No. 36, Kanakkampalayam Village, Gobichettipalayam Taluk, Erode District, for the year 1984-1985 on a licence fee of Rs.15,401/- with effect from 17. 1984 to 30.6.1985. The petitioner wound up his business and got back the initial security deposit and there was no arrears of kist. While so, the 2nd respondent issued a notice dated 12. 1993 to the effect that a decision had been taken by the Commissioner of Excise and Land Revenue regarding payment of kist amount on account of short supply of molasses. It was further stated in the notice that without taking into consideration the short supply of molasses, remission had been granted. Therefore, the 2nd respondent issued a notice dated 12. 1993, demanding a sum of Rs.51,459.10 towards arrears of kist. Subsequently, by order dated 12. 1994, the District Collector, Erode, directed the petitioner to pay the above said sum. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 11663 of 1994 and by order dated 16. 2001, the same was dismissed. After the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner has paid the entire sum of Rs.51,459.10 in installments from February 2004 to December 2004. The respondents had accepted the payments without any objection whatsoever and the petitioner was under the bona fide impression that he had discharged the entire amount. However, by order dated 15. 2005 in Na.Ka.Va.Pa.15/97/J1, the 2nd respondent directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,14,567/- towards interest on the sum of Rs.51,459/-from 7. 1986 to 30.6.2005 calculated @ 12% p.a. citing G.O.Ms. No. 81 dated 4. 2004 issued by the 1st respondent. On receipt of the order dated 15. 2005, the petitioner made representations on 25. 2005 and 30.5.2005 to the 2nd respondent for which, a rejoinder dated 6. 2005 was sent by the 2nd respondent confirming that the petitioner should make the payment of interest of Rs. 1,14,567/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. 3. On receipt of the order dated 15. 2005, the petitioner made representations on 25. 2005 and 30.5.2005 to the 2nd respondent for which, a rejoinder dated 6. 2005 was sent by the 2nd respondent confirming that the petitioner should make the payment of interest of Rs. 1,14,567/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. 3. The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the petitioner was the successful bidder for Arrack Shop No. 36, Kanakkampalayam Village, Gobichettipalayam Taluk, Erode District for the year 1984-1985 and the auction was confirmed on 17. 1984 for a sum of Rs. 15,401/-. Licence was granted to the petitioner on the same day. During the licence period from 11/84 to 3/85, due to severe shortage of molasses and the consequent shortage in the production of alcohol in the distilleries, restriction was imposed on the supply of arrack to the retail licensees. Therefore, there was short supply of arrack from 11/84 to 3/85. Some of the licensees filed writ petitions before this Court for full quota of arrack supply or to grant proportionate remission for the quantity not supplied. By order dated 30.1.1985 in W.M.P. No. 19368 to 19371/84 in W.P. No. 16074 to 16077/84, this Court directed the Government to determine the kist payable by each of the licensees and the quantity of arrack to be allotted to them after taking into consideration of the previous indents placed by them and the quantity of arrack actually supplied to them. Accordingly, normal quota for each arrack shop and proportionate kist was fixed along with remission, if any. As per the judgment in W.P. No. 1042/85 dt. 8. 85, the payment of kist was not linked with any specified quantity of arrack and there was no statutory provision in the rules mandating the Commissioner to fix any quota for the supply of arrack. Further, the petitioner has paid only Rs.1,32,607.20/- against the proportionate kist of Rs.1,84,066.80 for the year 1984-85. He was also granted remission of Rs. Nil for short supply of arrack during 11/84 to 3/85.As per the instructions issued by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise in R.C. R1/12118/91 dated 23. 93, the Collector, Periyar District, Erode in his Ref.139788/92J1 dated 12. 93 issued a notice to the petitioner directing him to pay Rs.51,459.10 towards the balance kist for arrack shop No. 36 for the year 1984-1985. 93, the Collector, Periyar District, Erode in his Ref.139788/92J1 dated 12. 93 issued a notice to the petitioner directing him to pay Rs.51,459.10 towards the balance kist for arrack shop No. 36 for the year 1984-1985. On receipt of the Collectors notice, the petitioner filed the W.P. No. 11663/94 and the same was dismissed by this Court by order dated 16. 2001. Pursuant to the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner remitted the above balance kist amount of Rs.51,459/- as detailed below: S.No. Chalan No. & Date Amount 1 S.B.I., Gobi 58/12.02.04 3, 000 2 S.B.I., Gobi -/15.03.04 5, 000 3 S.B.I., Gobi 12/19.04.04 5, 000 4 S.B.I., Gobi 67/17.05.04 5, 000 5 S.B.I., Gobi 45/16.06.04 5, 000 6 S.B.I., Gobi 6/19.07.04 5, 000 7 S.B.I., Gobi 34/17.08.04 5, 000 8 S.B.I., Gobi 14/15.09.04 5, 000 9 S.B.I., Gobi 5/110. 04 5, 000 10 S.B.I., Gobi 90/111. 04 5, 000 11 S.B.I., Gobi 14/212. 04 3, 459 Total Rs. 51, 459/- 4. The respondents have further submitted that the Government has issued an order in G.O.Ms. No. 81 Prohibition & Excise (II) Department dated 4. 2004 that under subsection (1) of Section 18 I of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act 1937 (T.N. Act X of 1937) by which the rate of interest was revised to 12% and a notification was also issued to the effect that the rate of interest shall be deemed to have come into force on 15. 1981. The said notification was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette 16 dt. 24. 2004. In accordance with the notification, the Collector, Eriode District, in his ref. S.R. No. 15/97 J1 dt. 15. 2005, issued a notice to the petitioner directing him to pay Rs.1,14,567/- towards 12% interest liable to be paid to the Government for the kist balance amount of Rs.51,459/- with an opportunity to make a representation, if any, before the Collector, Erode District, within 15 days. Accordingly, the petitioner made a representation before the 2nd respondent on 30.5.2005 and the petitioner was given a reply that the interest of 12% has been worked out in accordance with the above Government Order and the Collector, Erode District, further directed the petitioner to remit the same. Accordingly, the petitioner made a representation before the 2nd respondent on 30.5.2005 and the petitioner was given a reply that the interest of 12% has been worked out in accordance with the above Government Order and the Collector, Erode District, further directed the petitioner to remit the same. It is further submitted that as per Section 18 I of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, the Government can recover any amount due to the State Government under the provisions of the Act or rules made there under along with the accrued interest and that the Government is empowered to recover the loss sustained at any point of time, as per the notification and relevant rules and therefore, imposition of interest with retrospective effect is valid. 5. Assailing the Government Order and the consequential demand towards interest, Mr.M. Duraiswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that G.O. Ms. No. 81 dated 4. 2004 can only have prospective effect and it cannot be given any retrospective effect. He further submitted that when the 2nd respondent issued the demand notice for payment of arrears of kist amount for the period 1984-85, interest on the said amount was not claimed and in the absence of any show cause notice, the 2nd respondent is estopped from claiming interest for the above said period. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the arrears of kist amount has already been paid in instalments and the entire arrears was cleared on 212. 2004 and when there was no whisper regarding payment of interest, the respondents cannot apply G.O.Ms.81 dated 4. 2004 retrospectively and demand interest. In support of the above contention, he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2005 4 SCC 472 (Commissioner of Trade Tax V. Kanhai Ram Thekedar) and a judgment of this Court reported in 2005-2-L.W.215 (M/s. Ganapathy Lunghi Company & 8 Others V. Tamil Nadu Handloom Development Board). 6. Per contra, Mr.A. Arumugham, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit submitted that the petitioner was in arrears of kist amount of Rs.51,459/-and that the said amount ought to have been paid during the subsistence of the licence period and for the belated payment of kist amount, levy of interest is automatic and no notice is required. He further submitted that as per Section 18 I of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, the Government is empowered to issue in G.O.Ms. No. 81 dated 4. 2004 fixing the rate of interest and that the same is valid in law. Insofar as giving retrospective effect to the Government Order is concerned, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the Government is empowered to fix the rate of interest retrospectively taking into account the date of commencement of the licence and the statutory provisions under which the licence was granted. He further submitted that the licence was granted in 1984 and the payment of kist is due from 1984 onwards. It is also contended on behalf of the respondents that after determining the accrued interest to be paid by the petitioner on the arrears of kist amount, sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner and therefore, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. 7. Before adverting to the facts of this case, it is relevant to extract the statutory provision under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 relating to recovery of amount due to State Government and it reads as follows: "18.I Recovery of amount due to the State Government – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force and without prejudice to any other mode of recovery which is being taken or may be taken, any amount due to the State Government under any of the provision of this Act or the rules made thereunder along with interest, at such rate as may be specified by the State Government, may be recovered by the officer empowered by the State Government,- .(a) by deducting the amount due with interest from any money owing to the person which may be in the hands or under the control or disposal of any officer of the State Government; or .(b) by recovering the amount due with interest by attachment and sale of excisable articles belonging to the person from whom such amount is due." 8. Tamil Nadu Toddy and Arrack Shops (Auction and Disposal) Rules came into effect from 1981 onwards. Licence to vend arrack was granted under the said Rules. Tamil Nadu Toddy and Arrack Shops (Auction and Disposal) Rules came into effect from 1981 onwards. Licence to vend arrack was granted under the said Rules. The Licensee has to pay the kist amount during the licensing period and in the event of default, the Government can resort to recovery under Section 18.I of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 or any other mode of recovery which may be adopted to recover the amount due to the State Government. As per Tamil Nadu Toddy and Arrack Shops (Auction and Disposal) Rules, the State Government has chosen to fix the rate of interest with effect from 10th May, 1981. Therefore, I do not find any arbitrariness in fixing the rate of interest retrospectively from 1981 onwards. 9. In the decision reported in 2005 4 SCC 472 (cited supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court considered the payment of interest on belated payment of admitted amount of tax. Since, levy and payment of interest was after the period of limitation, the Supreme Court rejected the contention of the Department and set aside the recovery order. In the judgment reported in 2005 2 L.W. 215 (cited supra), the suit was filed by the Tamil Nadu Handloom Development Board for recovery of money due on a mortgage by deposit of title deeds, along with interest. It was contended that under the standard format agreement, wherein, it was agreed that the defendants would repay the debt, with interest at the rate of 16% per annum together with revised interest, in case, the interest is revised and also penal interest. The appellant contended that there was no agreement at all and therefore, it is unenforceable in law. It was further contended that what was payable by him by way of interest was only 16% and in the absence of any agreement fixing the rate of interest, the appellant was not liable to pay enhanced interest. A learned Single Judge of this Court held that when the subject matter of agreement was communicated and conveyed, there is a consensus between the parties and that mere acceptance of a policy of revision, may not amount to a specified agreement upon a particular fact or term. A learned Single Judge of this Court held that when the subject matter of agreement was communicated and conveyed, there is a consensus between the parties and that mere acceptance of a policy of revision, may not amount to a specified agreement upon a particular fact or term. In this way, there was no consensus between the parties relating to the quantum of revised interest and in the absence of any agreement, the Court held that defendants/appellants were not liable to pay the enhanced rate of interest at 18% p.a., instead of 16%, which was originally agreed for. In the case on hand, statute contemplates determination of rate of interest on any amount due to the Government. Therefore, power is vested on the Government to determine the rate of interest. Since, licence was granted under the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Toddy and Arrack Shops (Auction and Disposal) Rules, 1981, and taking into account that there was arrears of revenue from 1981 onwards, the Government had directed to pay the interest on the arrears with retrospective effect. Tamil Nadu Toddy and Arrack Shops (Auction and Disposal) Rules, 1981 were framed in exercise of the powers under Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. Levy of interest on the arrears of amount due to the Government being statutory, the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable. A perusal of pleadings disclose that earlier, the respondents have not issued any order claiming statutory interest on the amount due to the Government. Merely because the rate of interest was not included in the initial demand notice dated 12. 1993, that would not preclude the statutory authorities from levying and collecting the arrears of interest on the amount due to the Government. A perusal of the order impugned dated 15. 2005 shows that the rate of interest was not calculated for 2 fasli years 1984-1984 and 1985-1986 and only for the subsequent period, the respondents have calculated the arrears of interest till the discharge of the kist amount. It is settled legal position that there is no estoppel as against the statute and in the absence of a specific order of waiver of rate of interest, it is always open to the respondents to recover arrears of interest also. 10. It is settled legal position that there is no estoppel as against the statute and in the absence of a specific order of waiver of rate of interest, it is always open to the respondents to recover arrears of interest also. 10. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is violation of principles of natural justice, it may be seen from the pleadings that though initial demand was raised on 15. 2005, the objections of the petitioner were considered and that the 2nd respondent, by his order dated 6. 2005 has reiterated that the demand is justified in the light of G.O.Ms. No. 81 dated 4. 2004. As the arrears of amount has already been determined and also admitted by the petitioner, there is no need to issue any fresh show cause notice for the recovery of interest. Even otherwise, the petitioners representation has been duly considered. In view of the above, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. 11. For the above reasons, there is no illegality in the impugned orders and they are sustained. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.