By the Court.—Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Piyush Agrawal and Rahul Agrawal; Sri S.D.Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Nishant Mishra and Diptiman Singh for the petitioners and Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

2. Petitioners have filed these writ petitions under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging vires of Section 42(4) and 42(5) of U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 2008’) as substituted vide U.P. VAT (Amendment) Ordinance, 2008 which came to be substituted by U.P. VAT (Amendment) Act, 2008 i.e. U.P. Act No. 11 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Amendment Act, 2008’). Some of the petitioners have also challenged validity of Rule 70(5) of U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 2008’) as stands substituted by U.P. VAT (First Amendment) Rules, 2009.

3. In writ petition No. 1448 of 2009, writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 5.6.2009 passed by Joint Commissioner, Corporate Circle, Commercial Tax, Noida has also been prayed whereby respondent 3 has found that in view of amended provision, petitioner was supposed to deposit admitted tax of January 2008 to March 2008 by 20th October 2008 but it has been deposited late i.e. on 18.12.2008, 24.12.2008 and 31.12.2008. Hence petitioner is liable to pay interest on the aforesaid delayed payment. Respondent No. 3 has held petitioner liable to pay penalty under Section 54(1)(1) at the rate of 20 per cent of tax paid that is Rs. 10,62,929/- in respect to Provincial Tax and Rs. 19,06,785/- in respect to Central Tax.

4. Petition No. 1449 of 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Second Petition’) also deals with a similar order dated 6.6.2009 of penalty under Section 54(1)(1) for alleged delayed payment of due tax for the month of April 2008 which according to respondent 3 was liable to be deposited up to 20.11.2008 but was actually deposited in December 2008, therefore, in respect to Provincial Tax it has demanded penalty of Rs. 25,35,230/- and in respect of Central Tax amount of penalty imposed is Rs. 33,97,959/-.

5. Petition No. 1450 of 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Third Petition’) relates to similar order dated 6.6.2009 for alleged delayed payment of due tax for the month of May 2008 which was payable by petitioner up to 20.12.2008 but deposited on 31.12.2008 and in January and February 2009 Penalty for Provincial Tax under Section 54(1)(1) has been imposed at Rs. 23,52,870/- and in respect to Central Tax it is Rs. 43,03,582/-.

6. In Writ Petition No. 870 of 2009 notice dated 25.2.2009 issued by Joint Commissioner has been challenged since it has informed petitioner M/s. ACC Ltd. that it has withheld net tax payable for the period January 2008 to June 2008 whereupon it will have to pay interest under Section 33(2) of Act, 2008.

7. In Writ Petition No. 1680 of 2008 Joint Commissioner has issued notice dated 21.7.2008 which has also been challenged whereupon petitioner M/s. H-One India Pvt. Ltd. has been directed to deposit tax of January 2008 to June 2008 by 25.7.2008.

8. Similar notices requiring payment of tax which was not paid under exemption benefit have been challenged in the remaining three writ petitions for different periods upto June 2008.

9. With the agreement of learned counsel for the parties, for the purpose of pleadings, we have taken writ petition No. 1448 of 2009 as the leading case. The facts in brief giving rise to the dispute in question are stated as under:

10. Petitioner M/S Uflex Limited is a Company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1956’). It established a new unit pursuant to the representation made by State Government in the notification dated 31.3.1995, allowing certain tax exemptions. Petitioner’s unit was established for manufacture of print