BAJAJ HINDUSTHAN SUGAR Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Sri Kesari Nath Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ashish Misra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General, Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri S.N. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

(2.) The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3.3.2010 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) passed by the Cane Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow (Respondent No. 3) and prays for quashing of the same as also for a direction to the Respondents to grant eligibility certificate to the Petitioner's Company under the Sugar Industry Promotion Policy, 2004 with the consequential benefits. A further prayer has been made to quash the recovery certificate issued by the Respondents for realising of purchase tax and benefits/exemption obtained by the Petitioner in pursuance to the Sugar Industry Promotion Policy, 2004. They also pray that the Government Order dated 4.6.2007 be not given effect too.

(3.) According to Sri K.N. Tripathi, the Government came out with a Sugar Industry Promotion Policy, 2004 on 24.8.2004 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Policy') providing certain exemption benefits to Sugar Industries coming within the eligibility criteria fixed under the Policy. It is submitted that the Policy provided that it would be effective till 31.3.2007 but subsequently it was extended to be effective till 31.3.2008. However, by the Government Order dated 4.6.2007, the Policy was withdrawn/discontinued with immediate effect. The Petitioner alleges to have assailed the order dated 4.6.2007 in Writ Petition No. 24926 of 2008, which was dismissed by the judgment dated 12.10.2009 with liberty to the Petitioner to make a detailed application with his grievance against the demand notices and that he fulfilled the terms and conditions of the Policy for getting benefits there from. The Petitioner filed such an application before the Cane Commissioner on 31.12.2009 but when recovery proceeding were pursued by the Respondents, the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 1142 of 2010 (M/B) before the Lucknow Bench but it became infructuous since during its pendency the representation of the Petitioner was decided on 3.3.2001 by the Cane Commissioner. It is the said order that has been assailed in this writ petition.