Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1510 (ALL)

Paras Plywood And Harward v. State of U. P.

2016-04-22

DILIP GUPTA, RAVINDRA NATH KAKKAR

body2016
JUDGMENT The petitioners have challenged in these proceedings the action of the respondents in requiring the payment of registration fees allegedly under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. 2. The petitioners claim to be engaged in the business of purchase and sale of coal, coke, charcoal and limestone from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. The contention of the petitioners is that it is not liable to pay the registration fees. 3. The issue before the Court is not res integra but is governed by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Akansha Enterprises Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., VSTI 2012 (Vol.13) B-256. 4. The Division Bench held as follows: - “On the aforesaid facts and circumstances the insistence for registration and for charging the registration fees is beyond the authority conferred upon the respondents under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Rules of 1978.” 5. The operative directions that were issued by the Division Bench were in the following terms: - “Both the writ petitions are allowed to the extent that the petitioners will not be required to obtain registration for movement of coal within the State of UP. If any registration fee is charged from the petitioners, the same shall be returned to them. They will, however, continue to obtain transit passes and pay transit fee on the transportation/movement of coal, held to be forest produce in NTPC Ltd. (supra), in accordance with the U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978.” 6. These directions were followed by an another Division Bench of this Court on 18 December 2012 in M/S. Balaji Coal Supplier Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 7. Learned Standing Counsel could not point out any distinguishing feature. 8. In the circumstances and respectfully following the earlier judgment, we allow the writ petition in the same terms and directions as mentioned in the judgment and order dated 8 December 2011 of the Division Bench in M/s Akanksha Enterprises (supra). 9. In regard to the prayer for refund, we permit the petitioners to submit applications to the Competent Authority and if such applications are filed, a decision thereon shall be taken in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the applications. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.