Man Singh vs Assistant Sugar Commissioner and Another

M.C. Agarwal, J.—By this petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges an assessment order dated 15.6.1998 passed by a Khandsari Inspectorcum Assessing Officer, Jhinjhana, District Muzaffarnagar and appellate order, dated 28.7.1998 passed by the Appellate. AuthoritycumAssistant Sugar Commissioner whereby the petitioner''s appeal against the first mentioned order has been dismissed. The petitioner is operating a Khandsari manufacturing unit and opted to paysugar cane purchase tax on assumed basis in terms of Section 3 (1a) of the Act read with Rule 10A of the U. P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1971.

The Rules require that the intimation on of the start of the unit should be sent under a registered cover to the Sugar Commissioner, the Assistant Sugar Commissioner and the Assessing Officer so as to reach them 15 days before the start of the unit. The petitioner sent such intimation for the crushing season 199798 through a registered letter dated 25th October, 1997 which was received in the office of the Assessing Officer on 28th October, 1997 and the date of the start of the unit was mentioned as 11.11.1997. Thus the option was received by the Assessing Officer 14 days before the start of the crushing and not 15 days before, as required by the Rule. On this basis the Assessing Officer passed the impugned order, dated 15.6.1998 stating that the aforesaid defect was intimated� to the petitioner through a notice, dated 3rd June, 1998 and since the option was not in accordance of the Rules, the same was rejected and tax was levied on the basis of the actual purchase. An appeal against the said order has been dismissed. In the counteraffidavit the same stand has been taken in defence of the impugned orders.

As is evident the option was duly sent by registered post and reached the Assessing Officer 14 days before the start of crusher, thus there was substantial appliance of the Rules and no prejudice was caused to the State/Further the Assessing Officer or the other authorities to whom the options are required to be forwarded by Rule 13 did not raise any objection immediately on the receipt of the option or within a reasonable time thereafter. The petitioner continued to deposit purchase Tax according to the option and the respondents continued to accept the same without any demur. In the circumstances it was not open to the Assessing Officer to reject the option after both the parties had already acted upon it and there was no fraud etc, on the part of the petitioner nor was there in collusion with the concerned public authorities intended to cause of loss of revenue to the Government.

In my view, therefore, the rejection of the option is absolutely arbitrary and is not authorised by Rules and consequently the assessment based thereon is also without any legal authority.

The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned orders, referred to above, are quashed. The parties will bear their coats. Petition allowed.