SWASTIK METAL PRINTERS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTUAL matrix in the case, as set out in the writ petition, is that on October 20, 1980, petitioner M/s. Swastik Metal Printers, was provisionally registered with the Directorate of Industries, U. P. , for printed iron containers only. On February 3, 1983, the petitioner-firm was permanently registered with the Director of Industries, U. P. , for printed metal containers from P. C. R. C. sheets only. In the same registration certificate, on the top of it, it is mentioned "use of tin-sheets partly allowed only". On December 17, 1984, the petitioner preferred an application before the Director of Industries for grant of exemption from sales tax under section 4-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. On January 9, 1985, the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Saharanpur, in the letter addressed to the Joint Director, Industries, indicated that the unit had applied for the manufacture of tin containers and for amendment/extension of the registration. In consequence thereof, the Director of Industries, Kanpur, granted the registration certificate for the manufacture of tin containers and on that basis, it was indicated in the certificate of registration that the petitioner would be allowed to manufacture tin containers using partly the tin-sheets. It was also indicated that although the unit was registered for the manufacturing of P. C. R. C. sheets earlier and later on, was allowed to manufacture metal printed containers, but the unit considering the demand only used the tin-sheets as a result of which application of the petitioner for grant of exemption was objected to. It was further indicated in the letter that as the headquarter had granted permission to the petitioner to use tin-sheets, hence the unit had become entitled to use tin-sheets for manufacturing containers, hence it is entitled for grant of exemption under section 4-A. The General Manager, requested the Joint Director, Industries, to take necessary action in the light of the aforesaid facts. In the latter dated March 30, 1987, the Regional Committee in its letter addressed to the petitioner, indicated that when the unit according to the registration, was entitled only for the manufacture of P. C. R. C. sheets but the Sales Tax Department did not accept the purchase of the raw material as P. C. R. C. sheets. The enquiry has revealed that the petitioner has manipulated in the bills. Thereafter, he himself added "p. C. R. C. sheets" in the said bill in his own handwriting. The voucher which is available in the office of the Sales Tax Department does not indicate the fact regarding purchase of P. C. R. C. sheets when in the copy of which was given to the Industries Department, P. C. R. C. sheets was mentioned, hence the report of the Industries Department regarding the bill, appears to be suspicious.

(2.) IN para 25 of the writ petition, it has been averred that the petition made first purchases from M/s. Chunni Singh and Company vide bill dated February 12, 1983. Without entering into the dispute at the present moment whether the purchases made were of tin-sheets or of P. C. R. C. sheets, it was stated that first of all the said purchase was prior to the grant of permanent registration certificate on March 31, 1983 and inasmuch as the petitioner had not manufactured containers out of the said raw materials, the petitioner, on receipt of the orders dated July 27, 1983, purchased P. C. R. C. sheets vide bill dated January 6, 1983 and thereafter, after manufacturing printed tin-containers out of the P. C. R. C. sheets sold to M/s. Pawan Product, Kanpur, vide bill dated November 6, 1983 and claimed the exemption.

(3.) THE Divisional Level Committee considered about the said bill and in its order has indicated that the bill, which was sent to the Industries Department for grant of exemption, contained purchase of tin-sheets, but the bill which was sent to the sales tax authorities did not contain that. Considering the aforesaid facts, the exemption under section 4-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act was not granted to the petitioner. As far as the reasons for non-grant of exemption under section 4-A are concerned, it has been indicated, in another affidavit, wherein it has been averred that machines of the petitioner remained idle and no work was going on for more than six months at the time of inspection, for printing. THE petitioner was not entitled to exemption. That aspect of the matter was not before the Regional Level Committee or before the Divisional Level Committee when the application of the petitioner for grant of exemption of sales tax was under consideration. We have to examine the legality or otherwise of the impugned orders only for the reasons which have been indicated in the order. Any subsequent additional ground to support the said order, which are not indicated in the order, would not justify the action of the State, otherwise whenever an order would be challenged, it could very well be justified by adding other reasons. THE only question, which is relevant for consideration before this Court is as to whether under Explanation 2 (6) of section 4-A, the petitioner was entitled for the exemption or not. It appears that the Divisional Level Committee, while taking into account certain lapses on the part of the petitioner, which have been indicated in the order itself and other circumstances mentioned in the counter-affidavit, did not consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the aforesaid provisions. As we have indicated the firm of the petitioner was registered and was allowed to use tin-sheet partly with effect from January 7, 1985, hence it may not be said that the petitioner used any raw material for which it was not registered. It was incumbent upon the opposite parties to have considered the application of the petitioner in the perspective of the Provisions of section 4-A. Hence this case deserves to be remitted to the Divisional Level Committee again for consideration.