Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S RAS POLITEX PRIVATE LTD. versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Ras Politex Private Ltd. v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT TAX No. 82 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 1117 (17 January 2006)

 

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.10.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 82 of 2006.

M/S R.A.S. Politex Private Ltd.

Versus

State of U.P. and others.

                                         ------------------

Hon'ble A.K.Yog,J.

Hon'ble Prakash Krishna,J.

Heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal along with Sri Suyash Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of petitioner and Learned Standing Counsel, Sri M. R. Jaiswal, Advocate on behalf of respondents.

Petitioner has approached this court by means of present Writ Petition under Article 226, Constitution of India, being aggrieved due to issuance of Notice Numbers 833 and 834 both dated 10.11.2005 (Annexures 10 and 11 to the Writ Petition), with reference to  Assessment Years 2003-04 (under U.P. and Central Acts) issued by Deputy Commissioner (Assessment)-V Trade Tax, Varanasi/ Respondent No.3 requiring the petitioner to appear before him .  

The case of the petitioner is that an eligibility certificate was issued in its favour extending benefit of exemption in tax to certain extent and subject to given conditions on the basis of earlier Notifications dated 31.3.1995 as subsequently clarified vide Government Order dated March 17, 2004 (Annexures 1,2 & 5 to the Writ Petition). Due to issuance of subsequent Government Order dated 8-6-2005, as notified by the Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow vide letter dated 8-7-2005/Annexure 9 to the Writ Petition, said benefit under eligibility certificate has been seriously jeopardised. It is contended by the petitioner that Assessing Officer has no option and bound by  the Commissioner's letter dated 8.7.2005/Annexure 9 to the Writ Petition and hence the decision of the Assessing officer is a fore-closed issue; said clarificatory order does adversely affect his privilege (extended under eligibility certificate) which was extended to the petitioner during Assessment year 2002-03.

Learned standing counsel pointed out that present writ petition is against show cause notice to appear and as such petition is pre mature and not maintainable at this stage.  It is further submitted that the question of applicability of the  aforesaid Government clarification (contained in Department letter dated 8.7.2005/Annexure 9 to the Writ Petition) to the case of the petitioner is a wild guess and based on self-conceived  apprehension of the petitioner at this stage in as much as there is nothing on record to support said apprehension.

We have considered the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel. There is noting in the impugned notice to indicate that Assessing Officer is bound to act upon the Government clarification as contained in Department letter dated 8-7-2005/Annexure 9 to the Writ petition or that it is to be applied retrospectively or that it will apply only to subsequent Assessment years, etc.  

Taking into account the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is clarified that Assessing Officer shall, while undertaking proceedings in view of the impugned notices, shall consider the contention/submission of the petitioner on this aspect exercising its unfettered discretion on the basis of record and in accordance with law.

It is made clear that we have not entered into merits of the case and nothing shall prejudice the case of the petitioner before Assessing Officer.

In the result, we find that it is not the appropriate stage to interfere with the assessment proceedings by permitting the petitioner to invoke our extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 Constitution of India.  

Writ Petition dismissed in limine.

No order as to costs.

17-1-2006

RPS


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.