SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(All) 564

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Anshuman Singh And M.Katju
AMIT PLASTIC INDUSTRY
Versus
DIVISIONAL LEVEL COMMITTEE
Decided On : 10 November 1993
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 372 of 1989

Advocates Appeared:
ASHOK BHATNAGAR, BHARATJI AGARWAL,

M. KATJU, J.

This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for a writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated May 20, 1988 and January 19, 1989 (annexure Nos. 2 and 4 to the writ petition) and for a mandamus directing the respondents to issue eligibility certificate to the petitioner under section 4-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 and for a direction restraining the respondents from passing assessment orders for the period covered by the eligibility certificate.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a proprietorship concern carrying on the business of manufacturing and sale of P. V. C. pipes and pipe fittings. It established its new unit with the help of new machinery purchased by the petitioner from Golden Industries for a sum of Rs. 3,58,000 vide annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. Apart from the above machinery the petitioner also purchased a weighing machine for a sum of Rs. 48,000 from M/s. Angad Enterprises.

In order to get exemption under section 4-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act the petitioner applied for this purpose to the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ghaziabad and the matter was put up before the Divisional Level Committee which, however, rejected the petitioners application. A photo copy of the letter dated May 20, 1988, communicating the order rejecting the petitioners application under section 4-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act is annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. In this letter dated May 20, 1988, it is stated that an enquiry was conducted and it was found that the firm M/s. Angad Enterprises does not exist and hence it has to be inferred that the weighing machine was an old machinery. Thereafter the petitioner filed a review application on June 13, 1988, true copy of which is annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. In this application it was contended that in fact the said weighing machine was a new machinery purchased from M/s. Angad Enterprises against a regular bill from the term loan granted by New Bank of India Ltd. and the payment has been made by the petitioner by a bank draft to the said firm. However, this review application was rejected by the Joint Director of Industries, Meerut, on January 19, 1989, true copy of which is annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

A perusal of annexure No. 4 to the writ petition shows that the Divisional Level Committee has held that the weighing machine was used for weighing raw material used in the petitioners industrial unit. In the counter-affidavit it has been alleged in para 3 that the petitioners application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner allegedly purchased the said weighing machine from M/s. Angad Enterprises for a sum of Rs. 48,400, but on enquiry it was found that the said firm M/s. Angad Enterprises was not in existence and hence the said weighing machine was treated to be old. It was also contended in para 6 of the counter-affidavit that the weighing machine was necessary for the manufacturing process.

In our opinion it is not necessary to go into the question whether the weighing machine was old or new since even assuming that it was old, we are of the opinion that the petitioner could not be denied the eligibility certificate.

In this connection reference may be made to the Explanation under section 4-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act which was introduced by the U. P. Act No. 28 of 1991 retrospectively from October 12, 1983.

" Explanation.- For the purposes of this section :

(1) new unit during the period ending with March 31, 1990 means an industrial undertaking set up by a dealer on or after October 1, 1982 but not later than March 31, 1990, -

(a) which is licensed or in respect whereof a letter of intent has been issued or which is registered, permanently or otherwise by the appropriate authority in accordance with any law for the time being in force relating to licensing or registr









































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top