SUBHASH CHANDRA Vs. DEPUTY SUGAR COMMISSIONER BAREILY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Gulati, J. The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of ceniorari seeking quashing of the orders dated 6-10-90, and 7-9-1990, copies of which have beenjiled as Annexures 5 and 3 to the writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed for amandamus directing the respondents not to assess him to purchase tax for the month of May, 1990 as his Unit did not work in that month and it was closed down.

(2.) IN crushing season 1980-90, the petitioner owned a sugarcane crusher (hereinafter referred to as "the Unit") for the period 1-10-1989 to 30-9-1990. He opted for assessment on assumed basis under the provisions of U. P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961 and the rules framed thereunder. According to the petitioner, he had to suddenly closed down his Unit on 30-4-1990 due to labour prob lem and no sugarcane was crushed mere-after as the Unit was finally closed on that date. It is also the case of the petitioner that he could not send the information about the closure of his Unit on 1-5-1990 because that day was a National Holiday and the postal department was also closed on that date. It is claimed that the intima tion was however, sent under registered post on 2-5-1990 to the concerned authorities as prescribed under the Act and the Rules. On 3-6-1990, the Area Khandsari INspector inspected the Unit of the petitioner and he sealed the Unit on that date for the petitioner was allegedly in arrears of purchase tax. On 7-5-1990, the Deputy Sugar Commissioner, Haldwani, Namital, also inspected the Unit of the petitioner and in his report it was inter alia stated that the Unitwas completely closed. Further, no sugarcane was available on the spot (sic) Accountant Laxmi Narain Awas-tni had informed that the Unit had func tioned upto 30-4-1990 and thereafter, it was closed which has been verified by the Khandsari INspector on 3-5 -90.

(3.) IN Abdul Rahman son of Haji Rahman Rahmat Ullah Bijnor v. Assistant Commissioner Bijnor and Anr. , 1989 UPTC 409, somewhat a similar view has been taken as in the case of Tek Chand (supra ).