SINGHAL ICE FACTORY Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claimed exemption under section 4-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, but the same was denied by the Divisional Level Committee vide its order dated 21st March, 1987 (annexure 3 to the writ petition) on the ground that the land on which the unit is situated and the electric connection were in the name of one of the partners. Thereafter, the petitioner made a review application, which too was rejected by the Divisional Level Committee and such rejection was communicated to the petitioner by the order dated 14th March, 1988 (annexure 4 to the writ petition ). The review application was rejected on the ground that the generator was being used to run the unit and that was old. While rejecting the review application, the earlier stand that the land and the electric connection both being in the name of one of the partners and hence the unit was not eligible for exemption, was not reiterated and rightly so as vide circular dated 10th March, 1987 (annexure 9 to the writ petition) exemption could be claimed even if the land and the electric connection were there in the name of one of the partners. In paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that a survey was conducted on 31st October, 1986 and then a generator was found at the business premises, which is said to be old. It is stated that the generator was being used to run the unit. Again it is stated that the Project Officer and the Sales Tax Officer both inspected the business premises of the petitioner on 10th October, 1987 and they had noticed that there was no electricity and the unit was being run by the generator. In paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit, it is averred that ". . . . . . . . . the petitioner was entitled for exemption at the most from 1st October, 1982 to 1st October, 1986. . . . . . . " Without touching upon the merits of this averment, it clearly appears that both the inspections had been made after 1st October, 1986, which was the terminal point for exemption, according to the Revenue. The contention of the petitioner is that the generator was new one and that was purchased only for the purpose of light and fans and not to run the unit and, therefore, the exemption could not be refused on account of the generator being old. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not propose to enter into the merits of the questions whether the generator was old or new and whether that formed part of the machinery being employed in the unit, but the order of the Divisional Level Committee as communicated by the Joint Director vide order dated 14th March 1988 (annexure 4) is liable to be set aside for the simple reason that both the inspections had been made, according to the respondents, after the termination of the exemption period. The decision of the Divisional Level Committee, being based on irrelevant considerations, deserves to be quashed. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the orders dated 21st March, 1987 and dated 14th March, 1988 of the Divisional Level Committee as communicated by the Joint Director of Industries, are quashed. The notice dated 5th February, 1988 issued by the Sales Tax Officer, Sector III, Bulandshahar, respondent No. 3 (annexure 10 to the writ petition) is also quashed and the Divisional Level Committee is directed to issue eligibility certificate at an early date. Writ petition allowed. .