9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax under the Act, therefore, does not violate the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse guaranteed under Art.301 of the Constitution of India. Section 7 of the Act validating the amount of entry tax levied, assessed, realized and collected under the U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000, is also valid and authorises the State to keep the entire amount, for the purposes of its utilisation for facilitating trade, commerce and intercourse in the local areas of the State - Decided against assessee. - Writ Tax No. - 1530 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 26-9-2013 - Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani And Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,JJ. For the Petitioner : Aloke Kumar For the Respondent : C. S. C. ORDER 1. We have heard Shri Aloke Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Shri C.B. Tripathi, Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents. 2. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Tax On Entry of Goods Into Local Areas Act, 2007. The petitioner has also challenged the assessment orders passed by the Competent Authorities, levying entry tax under the Act, and has prayed for restraining the respondents from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods to pay entry tax. All other questions, will remain open to be considered by the competent authorities under the Act in accordance with law. 152. All the writ petitions are consequently dismissed. The interim orders are discharged." 4. The present writ petition was separated from the bunch on a mention made that the petitioner would challenge the assessment order under the Act and other issues raised in the writ petitions in accordance with the law. 5. Some of the writ petitioners of the batch of writ petitions including Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court in ITC Limited (supra), have filed Special Leave Petitions registered as SLP (C) No. 324-327/2012, in which on 17.1.2012 the Apex Court has passed an interim order as follows:- "The Respondent/State has levied Entry Tax on import of crude oil into the State under the provisions of U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred as `U.P. Act, 2007'), the vires of which has been upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad vide its order dated 23.12.2011 in Writ Tax No. 1483 of 2007 and connected matters. Several assessees hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e demand notices have been issued. Therefore, the contention of the learned Solicitor General that there was no basis for issuing demand notices; demanding taxes for the aforesaid period, has no merit. In so far as the assessment for the period of 2008--2009, 2009--2010 and 2010--2011 is concerned, the State has admitted that the assessees, for the aforesaid period, have filed monthly returns but have not accepted the liability to pay the entry tax on the import of crude oil. It is also stated that the assessing authority has issued a pre--assessment notice under Section 9(4) of the U.P.Act, 2007. It is also brought to our notice at the time of hearing of this petition that on the request, made by the assessee, the matter now stands adjourned for the years 2008--2009, 2009--2010 to 23 January, 2012 and for the assessment year 2011--2012, is adjourned to 3O January, 2012. A reading of the affidavit, so filed by the respondent--State, would indicate that for the aforesaid period, quantification of the tax liability is yet to be determined, and therefore, it may not be permissible for the State to issue any demand notices demanding tax from the assessees for the aforesaid assessment y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders passed by us on 11th January, 2012 and 13th January, 2012 in M/s.Vikram Cement vs. State of U.P. Ors. in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 33/2012. Ordered accordingly. SLP (C) No. 324--326/2012 [GAIL (INDIA) LTD. ANR. VS. STATE OF UP. ORS] Learned Solicitor General, Shri R.F.Nariman, has produced the details of Entry Tax assessed and demands pending for the assessment years 2000-- 2001 to 2009--2010. On instructions, he submits that the petitioners herein have paid substantial amount by way of Entry Tax to the Department. It is also his case that what now requires to be paid is approximately 100 crores only. It is also brought to our notice that for the assessment years 2000-- 2001 to 2009--2010, the petitioners have filed appeals/revisions before the High Court/statutory authorities and those appeals are pending for consideration. Now, a request is made that the petitioners should be permitted to make an application/petition for grant of ad-interim stay of the demand notices issued by the respondents -State for the assessment years 2000--2001 to 2009--2010. Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the State opposes the request made by the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o deposited/paid and the bank guarantee(s) furnished is subject to the result of these appeals. The appellant shall also deposit 50% of the tax liability/arrears, including interest and penalty, and furnish bank guarantee for the balance amount as and when demand notices are issued under the U.P.Act, 2007 for the past period. In default, the interim order(s) granted by this Court shall automatically stands vacated. In case the State of Uttar Pradesh loses the matter at the time of final hearing, it shall refund to the appellant the amount deposited with interest at the rate which may be fixed by this Court. It is also made clear that in case the appellant loses the matter, the Department is at liberty to encash the bank guarantee(s) offered by the appellant and also issue demand notice(s) demanding interest, and penalty on the amount outstanding as arrears of tax. The appellant shall continue to pay the tax at the prevailing rate(s) for the future period as applicable to each one of the assessees. In view of the interim order passed by us, we expect that the Department shall not resort to coercive steps to recover the amounts due to the Department. If for any reason, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if for any reason, the appellant in this case has passed, on the tax burden on the consumers. 9. The Apex Court has also observed in respect of other interim orders in Special Leave Petitions from other States:- "at this stage, we only to say that the interim order(s) are not precedents. It can be modified/varied in the facts and circumstances of each case." 10. We find substance in the contention of learned counsel appearing for the State respondents, that interim orders are not precedent to be followed, specially by the Court, which has upheld the validity of the Act of 2007. Entertaining the writ petitions, on the basis of interim orders passed by the Apex Court, would be something like entertaining an appeal against its own judgment. We are also unable to appreciate the prayers of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, that the writ petition may be disposed of as in the case of the orders passed by the Lucknow Bench of the Court, or to keep the writ petitions pending, until the matters are decided by the Apex Court. 11. The writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedies against the notices or assessment orders in accordance with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
