KAKAR SUGAR WORKS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the assessment year 1994-95, the petitioner was operating a sugar cane crusher under the name and style of M/s. Kakar Sugar Works. He had submitted Option in Form 13 in view of the proviso to Section 3 (1) of the U. P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act. 1961 (hereinafter called as the Act) read with Rule 13A of the U. P. Sugarcane (Purchase. Tax) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter called as the Rules). According to the option given by the petitioner, he was to operate his unit from 15.1.95. However, on 7th January, 1995, he claims to have informed the authorities concerned in accordance with the provisions contained in the second proviso to Rule 13A (1) of the Rules that for certain reasons, he will not be able to operate the unit w.e.f. 15th January, 1995. The date from which he will operate the unit will be intimated later on. In is further alleged that on 15.1.95, the petitioner informed the authorities concerned that he would operate his unit from 22.3.95. He deposited the tax on 21.3.95 and there was inspection dated 22.3.95 and ultimately the petitioner closed his unit after working up to 31st March, 1995. At the time of inspection dated 1.4.95, the unit was found to be not functioning. Another inspection was made on 9.4.95. The petitioner's case is that after expiry of about 3 years, he suddenly received a notice and after he furnished reply to the notice, assessment order was passed by cancelling the option exercised by the petitioner and by making best judgment assessment and tax liability of Rs. 17,550 was imposed by order dated 16.6.98. An appeal was filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority/ Assistant Sugar Commissioner. Shamli, district Muzaffamagar. which was dismissed without sufficient reasons.

(2.) The petitioner, therefore, filed the present writ petition praying to quash the impugned order dated 29.8.98 passed by the appellate authority and 16.6.98 passed by the assessing authority, i.e.. respondent Nos, 2 and 3 respectively. A further prayer has been made for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the impugned orders dated 29.8.98 and 16.6.98.

(3.) The respondents have filed counter-affidavit in which it is stated that on 7.1.95 information was given by the petitioner and no date was fixed from which the petitioner was to operate his unit and he had thus violated the provisions of Rule 13A of the Rules framed under the Act. It was admitted that in the assessment year in question, the petitioner operated his unit from 22.3.95 to 31.3.95 after depositing the purchase tax but this cannot be accepted since information dated 7.1.95 did not disclose the date on which the unit was to be operated which was clear violation of Rule 13A of the Rules. The option under Rule 13A of the Rules was accepted for the entire season. In view of the audit objection when he had given option to start the unit from 15.1.95, he was bound to pay purchase tax for the period from 15.1.95 to 31.3.95.