High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Lal Chand Rajbhar v. State Of U.P. Thru' Its Secy., Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lkw. - WRIT - C No. 658 of 2006  RD-AH 7216 (4 April 2006)
Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.
Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today may be kept on record.
The sanction order under Section 21(2) suspects that the firm of the petitioner was closed in the year 1999 and if this fact is correct, the petitioner was not entitled to the tax exemption as he was not manufacturing the cloth, but was importing and selling it. However, the sanction order dated 4.2.2006 does not finally adjudicate upon it, but states that this matter required further probe.
The only basis for this suspicion is an inspection report of 2005, which could not possibly be the basis for holding that the firm was closed in 1999 and the machinery was sold in 1999. The other basis is a statement given by the nephew of the petitioner. It is alleged that the nephew had made the statement for his father's firm, the Nirmal International and not for the petitioner's firm, which Bala Ji Traders. Nirmal International is also mentioned in the sanction order dated 4.2.2006.
Prima facie, the inquiry should have been conducted about the alleged closure of 1999 and the sale of machinery in 1999 and a positive finding was required before the sanction under Section 21(2) could be made by the petitioner.
In the circumstances, the Standing Counsel may file a counter affidavit within one month. In the meantime, further proceedings pursuant to the sanction order dated 4.2.2006 and the consequent notice dated 20.3.2006 will remain stayed till further orders. If the assessment has already been completed, the assessment order will not be served upon the petitioner. This relates to the assessment year 2000-01.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.