ABDUL REHMAN Vs. ASSTT SUGAR COMMISSIONER HALDWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

(2.) This writ petition arises out of an order dated 29/12/1981 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) under the U. P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner is the owner of cane crusher unit comprising of two power crushers each of the size 13"x18" six roller hydraulic non-sulphitation. The petitioner was granted a licence in respect of the aforesaid unit for the assessment year 1980-81. The petitioner exercises option within the meaning of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act read with Rule 13-A of the U. P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Rules by having filed the declaration in Form XIII. In the said declaration form the petitioner gave full details and particulars of the power crushers. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition the petitioner has stated that in accordance with the provisions of Rule 13-A the petitioner sent the desired declaration specifically mentioning therein that out of two power crushers they will operate only one power crusher. The other power crusher could not be operated because it was damaged and not in working order and there were no sufficient means to put the same in working order and also there were no adequate power supply of sugarcane. The unit of the petitioner was inspected by the respondent No. 2 from time to time and he always found one power crusher working and always found the other power crusher not in working condition. The inspection memo was prepared on the spot and a copy thereof was given to the petitioner. According to the petitioner that since the petitioner had operated only one power crusher, he was required to pay tax for only one power crusher on the assumed basis.

(3.) In paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit the respondents have admitted that the licensee had of course made a mention in the option form that he would operate only one power crusher but submits that it would not make any difference so far as the assessment of the tax under the Act is concerned as the tax is imposed unit-wise in case of licensee offering option under Section 3(1-b) of the Act and on the aforesaid basis the respondents made the assessment on the petitioner in respect of both the power crushers. The petitioner submits that the aforesaid order is bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction. The respondents have acted illegally in assessing the petitioners in respect of both the power crushers. The petitioner prays that the order dated 29/12/1981 be set aside and the petitioner be made liable for payment only in respect of one power crusher. The question as to whether the petitioner be assessed on the basis of one crusher only.