High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/s. Satyendra Kumar Rakesh Kumar v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment)-IV, Trade Tax, Muzaffarnagar & others. - INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 929 of 2001  RD-AH 1672 (10 December 2004)
Court No. 37.
W.P. No. 929 of 2001.
M/S. Satyendra Kumatr Rakesh Kumar Petitioner
Assistant Commissioner (Assessment)-IV,
Trade Tax, Muzaffarnagar & others. Respondents.
Hon. Vikram Nath,J.
By means of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for the following reliefs :-
(a)Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent No. 3, M/s Chandal Lal Mool Raj, 21-B, Navin Mandi Asthal, Muzaffarnagar, to supply the prescribed form III-C to the petitioner for the tax paid purchase of gur amounting to Rs. 10,70,850/- from it.
(b)Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(c)Award cost to the petitioner.
The petitioner is a registered firm and is carrying on business of purchase and sale of Gur and Khandsari on wholesale and commission agency basis. It is registered under the Provisions of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The Petitioner has made tax paid purchases from respondent No. 3 during the assessment year 1997-98. As the purchases made by the petitioner were tax paid purchases the petitioner requested the respondent no. 3 to issue Form III -C to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 for reasons best known to him has declined to issue form III-C to the petitioner. The tax liability has been fixed by the Trade Tax Authorities treating it as first purchases of the petitioner in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner Sales Tax vs. Prabhudayal Prem Narain (1988) U.P. Tax Case 1205 wherein it has held that the claim exemption under Section 3D of the Act can only be granted if the petitioner has furnished the prescribed declaration form and if the dealer had not furnished From III-C he was not entitled to any exemption.
We have heard Sri Suyash Agarwal learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.M. Sahai learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.
By means of the present writ petition the petitioner wants this Court to issue writ to the respondent No. 3 which is a private party and not a state to issue declaration form III C.
We are of the view that this Court cannot issue any direction or order in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent No. 3 for issue declaration form in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the respondent No. 3 is not discharging any public function or any statutory duty and the matter is in the realm of contract the term of which cannot be enforced in the present proceedings.
The writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.