HINDUSTHAN SUGAR MILLS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for vacating the interim order passed by this Court on 12th December, 1983, which was in the following terms :-

(2.) It has been stated in the application itself that the Rule that has been issued on the basis of the Writ application that was moved on behalf of the petitioners is not maintainable in this jurisdiction on two grounds. Firstly the impugned order that has been assailed in the Writ petition is an order regarding the exemption of excise duty on the basis of the circulars that have been annexed as annexures- A, B and C which were issued in 1981, 1982 and 1983 in respect of the sugar production made by the Hindusthan Sugar Mills Ltd. For the relevant years the challenge that has been made or tried to be made by the Excise authorities is not in accordance with the orders issued by the authorities concerned and that there has been a breach of the equality clause envisaged in Art.14 as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art.19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as by referring to the circular issued in 1982 it has been tried to submit that a sugar mill which has not produced any sugar at all and has produced for the first time sugar after the enforcement of the second circular in 1982 still gets the benefit of the amended circular, namely, it will be exempted totally in respect of the Excise duty as envisaged in the circular issued in 1981, annexure - 'A' to the Writ application. The other attack was that it has thereby tried to make a discrimination that the object tried to be achieved by the amendment of the circular brought in 1982 between the Sugar Mill which has commenced production in 1982 for the first time after enforcement of the amended circular and the Sugar Mill which commenced production before the coming into force of the said amended circular. On hearing Dr. Pal. the instant Rule was issued and interim order as quoted hereinbefore was granted by this Court. The application as has been stated earlier, for variation or modification of the interim order has been made mainly on the ground that this Court has got neither any territorial jurisdiction nor any part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of this Court. It has, therefore, been pleaded in this application that on this preliminary ground the Rule should be discharged and the interim order should be vacated.

(3.) An affidavit-in-opposition to this application for variation of interim order has been filed sworn by one Sitaram Agarwal, the Sales Manager of the petitioner No. 1. In para 6 of the said affidavit-in-opposition it has been denied and/or disputed that this Court has not the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Writ application as has been wrongly alleged in the said application. It has also been stated therein that the petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder of the petitioner No. 1 and the purported circular which has been challenged in the Writ application has vitally affected the interest of the petitioners, inasmuch as, it will affect the price of sale of sugar in Calcutta where the respondent No. 1 has got selling centre for sale of free sugar. It has also been stated in the said paragraph 6 that if the exemption is not granted in accordance with the provision of the circular, then the petitioners will not be able to sell free sugar at a lower price and that will affect their business and will ultimately lead to prejudice the value of the shares of the company in the share market. Therefore, it has been tried to be pleaded in the said paragraph that a part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of this Court.