APPOLO METALEX PVT. LTD Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. The petitioner, which is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of steel tubes and pipes, G.P. sheets, coil black pipe, galvanised pipe, etc. The said company is also registered under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. According to entry 94 of Schedule II read with section 4(1)(a) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008, the petitioner is liable to pay tax on steel tubes and pipes at four per cent under the U.P. VAT Act, 2008. In the meantime, a notification dated September 29, 2008 was issued, whereby entry 94 has been omitted, meaning thereby the petitioner has to pay tax at 12.5 per cent Thereafter, by another notification dated January 15, 2009, entry 94 was reinserted. Grievance of the petitioner is that from September 29, 2008 to January 15, 2009, the goods is being treated as "unclassified" and 12.5 per cent tax is being levied on it.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner company has filed the instant writ petition claiming following reliefs:

(3.) A specific query was put to the counsel for the petitioner that as to how he is aggrieved by the orders passed under section 59 of the Act in the matter of M/s. Bharat Pipe and Sanitary Stores, Ghaziabad, to which he replied that the order passed in the said case is identical to the facts and of the instant case. It also covers the petitioner as they are also engaged in the similar type of business. In the taxing statutes assessment proceedings are independent and the tax is levied on the goods after looking to the facts of individual cases after scrutiny by the assessing authority and as such, the relief No. (iii) claimed by the petitioner for quashing of the orders passed in the case of another firm cannot be interfered as no order of third party be quashed and as such, after arguing the matter at length, counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to press relief No. (iii), which pertains to quashing of the orders passed by the competent authority against M/s. Bharat Pipe and Sanitary Stores.