MOHD HANIF Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under article 226 of the Constitution is directed against a demand notice dated 27th June, 1973, issued by the Assistant Sugar Commissioner, Moradabad, requiring the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 6,787.52 as purchase tax on purchase of sugarcane during the year 1972-73, along with interest, as required by the U.P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act, 1961.

(2.) THE petitioner, Mohd. Hanif, holds a licence under the provisions of the U.P. Khandsari Manufacturers Licensing Order, 1967. He claims that as required by rule 14 of the Sugarcane Purchase Tax Rule, 1961, he submitted returns every month showing the quantity of sugarcane purchased by him during the preceding month, and paid the purchase tax thereon. According to him he has paid the entire amount of tax due for the year 1972-73 and no amount on that account was outstanding against him. The assessing officer, without complying with the provisions of the Rules, without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, and without serving upon him any assessment order, issued a demand notice dated 27th June, 1973, requiring him to pay purchase tax amounting to Rs. 6,787.52 along with interest. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the Assistant Sugar Commissioner, Moradabad, which is still pending consideration. While filing the appeal, the petitioner made a request that the proceedings for realisation of the tax, interest and penalty be stayed but respondent No. 2 rejected that request on the ground that it was not possible to do so. In the circumstances, the petitioner was left with no other alternative but to approach this court under article 226 of the Constitution and to pray for a writ of certiorari for quashing the aforesaid notice of demand.

(3.) IN Civil Misc. Writ No. 2791 of 1971, Basti Sugar Mills v. State of U.P. decided on 14th February, 1972, a Division Bench of this Court relying upon a Supreme Court decision in the case of Andra Sugars Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh ([1968] 21 S.T.C. 212 (S.C.); [1968] 1 S.C.R. 705) held that the subject-matter of legislation of the U.P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act, 1961, is covered by item No. 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and, therefore, the State Legislature had ample jurisdiction to enact the same. We are, therefore, of opinion that the Act cannot be struck down on the ground of want of legislative competence.