9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , can subsequently issue the impugned circular directing the authorities concerned not to treat "rubber roller" as "rubber product" and modify the recognition certificate accordingly. 2.. The petitioner is manufacturer of rubber roller. According to the petitioner rubber roller have one iron rod which is coated with thick rubber shed. The iron rod on which rubber shed is coated is hollowed and the rubber rollers manufactured by the petitioner are mostly used in printing press. The rubber rollers required great experience and knowledge. 3.. The recognition certificate under section 4-B of the Act in form 19 was granted to the petitioner vide annexure 1 to the writ petition. For the assessment year 1981-82 a dispute was raised at the inst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bharat Ji Agrawal, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Kesharwani, learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the record of the case. 5.. Learned Standing Counsel has raised the question of maintainability of the writ petition, as only a notice has been challenged in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition is maintainable and the alternative remedy is wholly illusory in the facts of the present case as the authorities under the Act are bound by the circular issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax. This matter has been considered by a division Bench of this Court reported in [2002] 128 STC 476; 2002 UPTC 262 (P.N.C. Construction Company Limited v. State of U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lopment, Ministry of Industries, New Delhi, for the said proposition. It was further submitted that in common parlance rubber roller manufactured by the petitioner was always treated as rubber product and that is why as far as back in the year 1981 the department itself granted recognition certificate to the petitioner. At this time there is no occasion to amend or modify the said recognition certificate merely because the department is of the opinion that rubber roller is not rubber product. 6.. We have carefully considered the respective submissions of the parties. The question whether rubber roller is rubber product or not had already cropped up in the case of the petitioner itself for the assessment year 1981-82. The First Appellate A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
