U. K. Dhaon, J. - Heard Sri Prashant Chandra, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jaideep Narayan Mathur, learned Additional Advocate-General assisted by Sri H. P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.

The brief facts of the case in a nutshell are as under :

The petitioner which is a private limited company has alleged that its unit at UPSIDC, Industrial Area, Sandila District, Hardoi, is manufacturing yeast from molasses, which is raw material for the manufacture of yeast. The molasses is purchased from various sugar factories situated in the State of U.P. The petitioner has further alleged that the State of U.P. enacted the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Adhiniyam"). Sub-section (4) of section 7A of the Adhiniyam provides that the occupier of a sugar factory shall be liable to pay to the State Government, in the manner prescribed, administrative charges at such rate, not exceeding Rs. 5 per quintal as the State Government from time to time notify, on the molasses sold or supplied by him.

The petitioner has further alleged that the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 is a special Act and the same has been enacted for the control of storage gradation and price of molasses produced by sugar factories in Uttar Pradesh and the regulation of supply and distribution and sub-section (5) of section 7A provides that the occupier shall be entitled to receive from the person to whom the molasses is sold or supplied an amount equivalent to the amount of such administrative charges, in addition to the price of molasses.

The petitioner has further alleged that the State Government is already charging tax from the petitioner under the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 which is a special enactment for molasses only and as such under the provisions of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 no tax can be realised from the petitioner as it will amount to double taxation on the sale of same product, i.e., molasses by the State Government under two different enactments.

The petitioner being aggrieved by the Notification No. ST-2-5784/X-10(1)-80-U.P. Act 15/48-Order-81 dated September 7, 1981 which has been issued in exercise of the powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 3A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (U.P. Act No. 15 of 1948) read with section 21 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1904), and in supersession of all pervious notifications issued from time to time under sub-section (1) of section 3A of the Act as it stood before its amendment by the U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1981 (U.P. Ordinance No. 12 of 1981), by which it has been provided that, with effect from September 7, 1981, the turnover in respect of the goods specified in column (2) of the Schedule to the notification shall be liable to tax at the point of sale specified in column (3) of the said Schedule at the rate specified against each in column (4) thereof, has filed the instant writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the levy of administrative charges on the sale of molasses is a tax and as the petitioner is paying administrative charges on the purchase of the molasses from the sugar mills, the opposite parties cannot realise the trade tax under the provisions of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 on the same purchase of molasses. He further submitted that the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut v. Kisan Sahkari Chinni Mills Ltd. reported in [2001] 6 SCC 697 has held that administrative charge levied by the State of U.P. under the provisions of the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964, on the sale and purchase of molasses is a tax. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow, U.P. v. Chhata Suga