KUNWAR MURLI MANOHAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are petitions in which the validity of a cess or tax imposed by the State Government on sugarcane entering the premises of sugar factories in the Uttar Pradesh is challenged.

(2.) Section 29(2) of the United Provinces Sugar Factories Control Act, 1938, (hereinafter called the 1938 Act) empowered the Governor, after consulting a Sugar Control Board established under the Act, by notification to impose a cess on the entry of sugarcane into any local area specified in the notification for consumption, use or sale therein. Notifications were issued under this section at the commencement of each crushing season imposing uniform cess of three annas a maund on sugarcane entering the premises of all vacuum pan sugar factories as defined in the Act within the Province or State. The last notification under this Act was published on the 15-11-1952. In 1953 the 1938 Act was replaced by the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953, (hereinafter called the 1953 Act) Section 20 (1) of which was in substantially the same terms as Section 29(2) of the earlier Act save that the levy is now described as a tax. Thereafter notifications were issued under the 1953 Act imposing a tax at the same rate in respect of sugarcane entering factory premises in the crushing seasons 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56.

(3.) Payment of the cess or tax was demanded from the petitioners; they have however, with the exception of the petitioners in Petitions Nos. 539 and 540, declined to pay on the ground that the demand is unlawful, and in some cases proceedings have been commenced and warrants of attachment issued for the recovery of the sums demanded under those sections of the two Acts which provide for realisation of the amounts due as though they were arrears of land revenue. It was in these circumstances that these petitions have been filed, the principal reliefs sought being, first, the quashing of the Notifications under the 1938 and 1953 Acts relating to those years in respect of which the levy has not been paid and, secondly, the quashing of the warrants of attachment in those cases in which such have been issued.