Maa Mahalaxmi Transport Company vs State of U.P. and Others

By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the insistence of the respondents for payment of registration fees on the supply of coal. The petitioner is involved in the trade of coal. It is a registered dealer under the provisions of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. It transports coal from the registered dealers from outside the State of U.P. and the State of U.P. is being used as a passage. The forest authorities of State of U.P. are insisting upon taking registration and charging registration fees for each truck of coal, which is being supplied. The contention is that the petitioner is not liable to pay any registration fees nor liable to take any registration in respect of each truck. Reliance has been placed upon a recent decision of this court in Akanksha Enterprises v. State of U.P. [2013] 57 VST 457 (All) (Writ Tax No. 1699 of 2011 decided on December 8, 2011) wherein this court had allowed the writ petition and had held that the petitioners will not be required to obtain registration for movement of coal within the State of U.P. The operative portion of the judgment is reproduced below (page 460):

On the aforesaid facts and circumstances the insistence for registration and for charging the registration fees is beyond the authority conferred upon the respondents under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Rules of 1978.

Both the writ petitions are allowed to the extent that the petitioners will not be required to obtain registration for movement of coal within the State of U.P. If any registration fee is charged from the petitioners, the same shall be returned to them. They will, however, continue to obtain transit passes and pay transit fee on the transportation/movement of coal, held to be forest produce in NTPC Limited Writ Tax No. 327 of 2008 decided on November 11, 2011 in accordance with the U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978.

Shri S.P. Kesarwani, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, could not point out any distinguishing feature so as not to apply the aforesaid judgment in the present case. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we allow the writ petition in the same terms and directions as mentioned in the judgment and order dated December 8, 2011 passed by this court in the case of Akanksha Enterprises [2013] 57 VST 457 (All).