Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S SRI LUXMIJI MODERN RICE MILL versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECY. KAR AVAM NIBHANDHAN & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/s Sri Luxmiji Modern Rice Mill v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Kar Avam Nibhandhan & Another - WRIT TAX No. 452 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 1859 (9 August 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.37

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.452 OF 2005

M/s Sri Luxmiji Modern Rice Mill, Mahrajganj. ....Petitioner

Versus

The State of U.P. and another.   ....Respondents

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record and to quash the impugned order dated 18.09.2004 passed by Assistant Commissioner Trade Tax under section  22 of U.P. Trade Tax Act, annexure 5 and 6 to the writ petition.

By means of the aforesaid two orders Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax, Mahrajganj had held that the petitioner is liable for payment of interest amounting to Rs.13,166.00 and Rs.1,27,310/- for the assessment year 1998-99, U.P. and Central respectively.  The claim of the petitioner is that the State Government has announced the scheme published in the newspaper on 27.11.2004 by which remission of interest has been provided in cases where the amount of tax has been deposited and therefore, there is no justification for demanding the payment of interest which stood remitted/waived under the said scheme.

As counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties,  with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself in accordance with the Rules of the Court.

Sri M.A.Qayyum, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the scheme for remission of interest announced by the State Government on 27.11.2004, petitioner is entitled for waiver of the interest as the entire demand has been deposited prior to enforcement of the aforesaid scheme. The submission is misconceived in asmuch as the aforesaid scheme is applicable in the cases where the demand has been created on or before 31.03.2002. Admittedly in the present case demand was created by the assessment order passed on 31.01.2003 pursuant to the direction given by the appellate authority by which the original assessment has been set aside and fresh assessment was directed as admittedly, assessment order was passed on 31.01.2003, the scheme of remission of interest is not applicable.

In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any merit in the present petition, which is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Dt.09.08.2005

R./


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.