9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 762X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kalra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. Petitioner No. 1-M/s. Tirupati Enterprises is dealer and is engaged in the trading of sugar in wholesale by purchasing the same from the manufacturers of sugar and thereafter sells the same to retail dealers, whereas petitioner No. 2 is the proprietor/partner of petitioner No. 1. In short, the grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents are seizing the sugar of dealers including the petitioner on the pretext that they are liable for entry tax to the manufacturer of sugar or the taxing Department and for releasing the same, the petitioners h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covered under 2004 policy is only with regards to difference of rate as the sugar purchase from any other normal industries would cost more than the sugar brought from the industries covered by 2004 policy. On the other hand, Sri H.P. Srivastava, while admitting that the exemption has been granted vide notification dated May 20, 2005 but 2007, the State Government has revoked the policy under which incentives were granted and as such, the action of the respondents cannot be said to be unwarranted. However, he submitted that there will be no objection if any restrained order is being passed subject to the final outcome of writ petition No. 2686 (M/B) of 2008, wherein ad interim order has been passed and the matter is seized up before the Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948." Thus, it is clear that new manufacturing unit/manufacturing unit covered under the Sugar Industry Promotion Policy, 2004, was exempted from payment of entry tax, subject to the conditions enumerated hereinabove. The record reveals that when the exemption was taken away by the revocation of the policy, M/s. Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. filed a writ petition No. 2686 (M/B) of 2008. A Co-ordinate Bench of this court, after considering the lengthy arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, passed a detailed interim order and the relevant portion reads as under: "Considering the arguments of the parties counsel and the question involved, we are prima facie, satisfied that the State has not been able ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
