BANSAL SUGAR WORKS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order of the appellate authority-cum-Deputy Sugar Commissioner, Meerut, dated 15th October, 1982, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that the appeal was not accompanied by a copy of the demand notice.

(2.) It is not necessary to go into the facts of the case inasmuch as the appeal of the petitioner has not been decided on merit. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the appellate authority was not justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground that a copy of the demand notice was not filed along with the memo of appeal which should have been decided on merit. For deciding the aforesaid question it would be relevant to refer to Rule 24 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Rules, 1961, which provides the manner in which the appeal shall be filed, and reads :

(3.) From a reading of the aforesaid provisions it is abundantly clear that the requirement of the rule is not that a notice of demand should be filed along with the memorandum of appeal. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 lays down that an appeal shall be accompanied by an attested copy of the order of assessment or imposing penalty or a notice of demand of interest, if any. It does not lay down that the appeal has to be accompanied by a notice of demand. In this view of the matter it is amply clear that the appellate authority was not justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground that it was not accompanied by a notice of demand as it was not required by Rule 24(8).