Court No. - 37 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 294 of 2008 Petitioner :- M/S Emami Limited Thru' Director S.K. Goyanka Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Principal Secy. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Praveen Kumar,Ashok Kumar Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajes Kumar,J.
Hon’ble Subhash Chandra Nigam,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Kumar on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing
Counsel on behalf of State of U.P.
By means of present writ petition the petitioner has sought the following relief
:-
1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned notice dated 8.2.08 issued by respondent no. 4 (Annexure-8
to this writ petition).
2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding respondent no. 3 and its subordinate not to proceed
against the petitioner for realisation of the impugned disputed amount
of tax for the month of October and November 2007 till the disposal of
the appeals.
Impugned notice dated 8.2.2008 has been issued by the Assistant Collector
(Collection) Trade Tax Kanpur Nagar, by which he has raised the demand for
the month of October, 2007-2008.It appears that for the month of October,
2007 and November, 2007 the provisional assessment orders have been
passed by the assessing authority levying tax at Rs. 44, 28,404.36 , for the
month of October, 2007 32, 79,541.00 for the month of November, 2007.
Against the said orders the petitioner filed two appeals no. D29/08 and
D47/08 before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) Trade Tax Kanpur. The said
appeals appear to be pending. It appears that there is nothing in the writ
petition to show that any stay order has been passed by the appellate authority
staying the demand of tax levied for the month of October and November,
2007 by a provisional order. In these circumstances we do not see any error in
the demand notice issued by the Assistant Collector unless the petitioner is
able to show that by any competent court the realization of the demand has
been stayed, the recovery notice can not be said to be unjustified. The
petitioner is carrying on the business of manufacture and sales of various
products such as Himani Boro Plus Antiseptic cream etc.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a supplementary affidavit
has been filed annexing a copy of the order passed by the Commissioner
Trade Tax (Commercial Tax) under section 59 of the Act, in the case of the
petitioner itself in which certain items have been held falling under the
Ayurvedic Medicines are liable to be taxed at the rate of 4%. According to us
the order passed under section 59 passed by the Commissioner Commercial
Tax U.P. has no relevance to the present case.
In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case the petition is devoid
of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.1.2010
KCS