Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1989 DIGILAW 936 (ALL)

Sisona Gur Khandsari Udyog v. State of U. P

1989-12-12

DR.R.R.MISRA

body1989
ORDER Dr. R.R. Misra, J. - For the crushing season the petitioner worked his Unit on option basis. lie gave intimation to the opposite panics to close his Unit with effect from 30-4-1986, however. on an inspection made on 1-5-1986 by the Assistant Sugarcane Commissioner, it was being produced and was in the process of being boiled. One crusher was also found working on the said date. Therefore, by the impugned orders the opposite parties have taken the view that since the Unit was found working on 1-5-1986, the petitioner was liable to pay sugarcane purchase tax for the entire month of May, 1986. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that what is significant under the Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act is the crushing of sugarcane and since admittedly on 1-5-86 no sugarcane was being crushed, therefore, no tax could be levied against the petitioner for the entire month of May, 1986. On the facts stated above and in view of the report dated 1-5-1986 of the Assistant Sugarcane Commissioner, I do not agree with the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel the petitioner. On considering the scheme of U.P. Suggracane Purchase Tax Act, 1961 and the Rules framed thereunder. I find that under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, the tax is levied in the prescribed manner on the purchase of sugarcane by the owner of a unit at a particular rate. Proviso to the said sub-section also provides that in the case of unit, the tax shall he payable, at the option of owner of the unit, on the quantity of sugarcane assumed in accordance with provisions of law. Under sub-section (1-b) of Section 3 of the Act, the option is to be exercised by the owner of a unit by a particular date. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act also provides that the tax levied under sub-section (1) shall be payable by the owner of the unit and shall be paid on such date and at such place, which may be prescribed. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act also provides that the tax levied under sub-section (1) shall be payable by the owner of the unit and shall be paid on such date and at such place, which may be prescribed. In cases in which option is exercised by the owner of it unit, the relevant rule is Rule 13-A of the U.P. Sugarcane Purchases Tax Rules, 1961, which seats out the machinery and specifies that in case a unit is found to be working after the last date specified and intimated for the closure of the unit, the quantity of sugarcane for the purpose of payment of sugarcane purchase tax shall be assumed for the whole of such month. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid scheme for levying and collection of sugarcane purchase tax under the said Act and the Rules made thereunder in a case where the owner of the unit has exercised the option, he is required to intimate the date of the closure of his Unit and to pay tax accordingly. In case his Unit is found working on a later date after the date of closure intimated by him which is the last date of the month. In this case it has been provided that the owner of the Unit shall he liable to pay sugarcane purchase tax for the entire subsequent month. Besides this, it has already been held by this Court in the case of M/s. Bharat Sugar Works v. Appellate Authority (Writ Petn. No. 02 of 1987) decided on 2-1-1987 (reported in 1987 All LJ 547) and also in Writ Petn. No. 1412 of 1989, M/s. Mohd. Yusuf Mohd. Ahasan v. Deputy Sugar Commissioner, decided on 23.12.1989, that a Unit can be said to have been closed only after all the activities of the Unit have come to a step. Since in the present case the Assistant Sugarcane Commissioner on 1-5-86 found that one crusher was actually working and Raab was also being boiled, therefore, the Unit of the petitioner was not closed on 1-5-86 and the authorities below were right in taking the view that the Unit was working on 1-5-86 and consequently the petitioner is liable to pay tax for the entire month of May, 1986. 3. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The interim order dated 30-9-86 is vacated.