9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (5) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the two notifications dated January 25, 1975, issued under section 14 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act " for short). The petitioners also sought a mandamus directing the State Government to grant remission in purchase tax of 0.51 paise per quintal to all the sugar factories situated in the State of U.P. As the pattern of facts is similar in all the cases, we would refer to the facts of Civil Appeal arising out of Writ Petition No. 409 of 1975 filed by M/s. Shree Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd., Bailtapur, District Deoria, against the State of Uttar Pradesh and others to bring out the question for consideration in these appeals. The petitioner is a public limited company and owns a sugar factory in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the factories situated in the east zone. By a notification issued under section 14(1) of the Act, the State Government granted remission to the extent of 0.51 paise per quintal to 18 sugar factories mentioned in the area. By another notification of the same date, two more factories were granted the remission. As the remission was not granted to the appellant-petitioner and to some other factories similarly situated, they filed petitions under article 226 of the Constitution challenging the aforesaid notifications issued by the State Government. The State of U.P. resisted the petitions and denied the allegation of promissory estoppel and discrimination set up in the writ petition. The High Court dismissed those petitions by the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... season 1957-58 and purchasing sugarcane yielding low sugar recovery, may by notification in the Gazette, remit, in whole or in part, the tax payable under this Act, in any assessment year, by every such factory falling under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c)." In the instant case, the notification remitting the purchase tax was issued by the State Government on being satisfied so to do in the public interest with a view to encourage and regulate the supply of sugarcane to, or its purchase by, the factories in the State of Uttar Pradesh during 1973-74 assessment year. Dr. Chitale, appearing for the appellants, with his usual candour and fairness, gave up the plea of promissory estoppel and confined his argument to discrimination made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he discretion has been left to the State Government to decide whether any particular factory should be granted remission or not guided by the purpose set out in the relevant clause. Neither in clause (a) nor in any other clause of section 14(1) of the Act, there is anything to indicate that the State Government must grant remission to all sugar factories for encouraging or regulating the supply of sugarcane. The reason is obvious. It may be that a factory situated in one area or falling in one category is in need of this remission while those which are not either situated in that area or do not fall in that category may not need it. It is true that the power conferred by clause (a) is to be exercised for the purpose of encouraging and regu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the word "regulate" also shows that the said power can be exercised with a view to take measures to promote the sale of sugarcane. If the power conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 14 has been exercised for the purpose of granting remission to only those sugar factories which purchase sugarcane of low recovery, there is nothing wrong in so doing. It was next contended by Dr. Chitale that the factories which had recovery of 8.5 or less had been granted the remission. Some of the appellants were also in similar position and they have been refused unjustifiably and the State Government had discriminated between the factories falling in the same group and thus the notification issued on January 25, 1975, suffered from the vic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeded, we may refer to Anant Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [1975] 3 SCR 220. The remission was granted only to the factories where the recovery from the sugarcane was low to enable the factories to make timely payments towards the cost of sugarcane and non-payment of the cane prices affecting the supply of cane to factories. It was in these circumstances that the Government granted remission to the factories which needed the help. The immediate factor affecting the economy is the recovery of sugar from sugarcane and the sugar content in the cane produced goes a long way to determine the cost of sugar. Thus the sugar factories which were purchasing sugarcane yielding low recovery are distinguishable as a class separately from those wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
