# Janta Machine Tools v. State of U.P. and

- **Citation:** (2004) 1 ILRA 71
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-09-24
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1059 of 1987
- **Bench:** M. Katju, Umeshwar Pandey
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/janta-machine-tools-v-state-of-u-p-and-40289
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Trade Tax, Section 4 A-petitioner a
company-claiming exemption of sales
tax-given to new units- on basis of a
G.O.-whether trial production amounts
to actual date of production- held, no.

Held- Para 10 & 11

In para-14 of the counter affidavit, it is
stated that application under Section 4-A
was rejected because the petitioner was
not found to be a new unit as defined in
the relevant definition in Section 4-A.
Among the condition of eligibility for
exemption was the condition that the
unit started production on or after
1.10.1982. It is alleged that since the
production
was
started
before
1.10.1982, the petitioner was not eligible
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
72
for sales tax exemption and accordingly
his application was rejected.

It has been held by the Supreme Court in
Janta Machine Tools Vs. State of U.P. and
others 1989 suppl. (1) S.C.C. 281, that
the trial production does not amount to
the date of actual production under the
Government
Order
dated
30th
September, 1982.
Case law discussed:
1998 Suppl. (i) SCC 281
2003 UPTC 354

## Text

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] M/s Raebareli Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. V. State of U.P. and others
71
13. In B.C. Chaturvedi's case
(supra) also the Hon'ble Apex Court in its
majority view has held as below: -

"A review of the above legal
position
would
establish
that
the
disciplinary authority, and on appeal the
appellate authority, being fact-finding
authorities have exclusive power to
consider the evidence with a view to
maintain discipline. They are invested
with the discretion to impose appropriate
punishment
keeping
in
view
the
magnitude or gravity of the misconduct.
The
High
Court/Tribunal,
while
exercising the power of judicial review,
cannot normally substitute its own
conclusion on penalty and impose some
other penalty. If the punishment imposed
by the disciplinary authority or the
appellate
authority
shocks
the
conscience of the High Court/Tribunal,
it would appropriately mould the relief,
either directing the disciplinary/appellate
authority to reconsider the penalty
imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it
may itself, in exceptional and rare cases,
impose appropriate punishment with
cogent reasons in support thereof."

14. Since the long unjustified
absence of the petitioner from duty on
two occasions as detailed above, have
been found by the disciplinary authorities
as misconduct of very grave nature, we,
while sitting in writ jurisdiction do not
feel inclined to interfere with the quantum
of punishment awarded to him in the
present matter.

15. In the aforesaid view of the
matter, the impugned orders of the
disciplinary authorities (Annexures-17 &
18) and the Judgment of respondent no.1
(Annexure-19) confirming the inquiry
report
and
consequent
award
of
punishment against the petitioner, do not
warrant any interference in the present
writ petition, which must fail for want of
merits.

The petition is hereby dismissed with
no order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.9.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1059 of 1987

M/s Raebareli Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd.

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U. P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Bharatji Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P. Trade Tax, Section 4 A-petitioner a
company-claiming exemption of sales
tax-given to new units- on basis of a
G.O.-whether trial production amounts
to actual date of production- held, no.

Held- Para 10 & 11

In para-14 of the counter affidavit, it is
stated that application under Section 4-A
was rejected because the petitioner was
not found to be a new unit as defined in
the relevant definition in Section 4-A.
Among the condition of eligibility for
exemption was the condition that the
unit started production on or after
1.10.1982. It is alleged that since the
production
was
started
before
1.10.1982, the petitioner was not eligible
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
72
for sales tax exemption and accordingly
his application was rejected.

It has been held by the Supreme Court in
Janta Machine Tools Vs. State of U.P. and
others 1989 suppl. (1) S.C.C. 281, that
the trial production does not amount to
the date of actual production under the
Government
Order
dated
30th
September, 1982.
Case law discussed:
1998 Suppl. (i) SCC 281
2003 UPTC 354

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

This writ petition has been filed
against
the
impugned
order
dated
16.9.1987 passed by the respondent No.2,
Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The
petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus
restraining the respondents to restrain
from realizing any sales tax from the
petitioner or requiring the petitioner to
deposit any sales tax for the assessment
years 1983-84 to 1988-89.

2. The petitioner is a company
registered under the Indian Companies
Act, 1956 which carries on the business of
manufacture and sale of Aata, Maida, Suji
and Bran. The State Government vide its
Order dated 30.9.1982 under S.4A of the
U.P.
Trade
Tax
Act
granted
the
exemption from payment of sales tax to
the new units, which were to be
established
in
Uttar
Pradesh.
The
petitioner has alleged that its unit is
covered
under
Clause
(2)
of
the
Notification dated 30.9.1982 for which
the petitioner was granted an Industrial
licence by the Central Government.

3. It is alleged in para-8 of the
petition that the petitioner purchased new
machineries, the value of which was
about Rs.40 lacs. Apart from it, the
petitioner had made huge investment of
more than Rs. Six lacs towards land and
building for starting the new unit.
Petitioner has been granted registration by
the Director of Industries, Bulandshahar
vide
registration
certificate
dated
29.9.1984, Annexure-1 to the petition.

4. In this certificate of registration, it
is mentioned that the date of start of
actual production in the flourmill off the
petitioner was with effect from 9.1.1983.

5.

The
petitioner
made
an
application for exemption under Section
4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, vide
Annexure-2 to the petition. The Petitioner
also applied for registration under the
Factories Act and got a certificate dated
3.2.1983 vide Annexure-4 to the writ
petition.

6. It is alleged in para-15 of the
petition that the General Manager, District
Industries
Centre,
Bulandshahar
recommended
grant
of
eligibility
certificate to the petitioner. However, that
application was rejected on 23.3.1987.
Against that order, the petitioner filed a
review application, which too has been
rejected by order dated 16.9.1987, vide
Annexure-5 to the petition.

7. A perusal of Annexure-5 shows
that respondent no.2 has rejected the
application under Section 4-A of the Act
on the ground that the petitioner made
purchases of raw materials on 31.5.1982
and hence the date of starting the
production shall be taken as 31.5.1982.
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Vijay Shanker Singh V. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad and others
73
8. It is alleged in para-22 of the
petition that respondent no.2 has rejected
the application for exemption overlooking
the registration certificate issued by the
Director of Industries in which the date of
starting production has been mentioned as
9.1.1983. In para 24it is alleged that the
assessing authority also observed in the
assessment order for assessment year
1981-82 that production in the petitioner's
unit was started in January, 1983 vide
Annexure-6 to the petition.

9. Counter affidavit has been filed
and we have perused the same. In para10, it is stated that the unit started its trial
production on 31.5.1982.

10. In para-14 of the counter
affidavit, it is stated that application under
Section 4-A was rejected because the
petitioner was not found to be a new unit
as defined in the relevant definition in
Section 4-A. Among the condition of
eligibility
for
exemption
was
the
condition that the unit started production
on or after 1.10.1982. It is alleged that
since the production was started before
1.10.1982, the petitioner was not eligible
for sales tax exemption and accordingly
his application was rejected.

11. It has been held by the Supreme
Court in Janta Machine Tools Vs. State
of U.P. and others 1989 suppl. (1) S.C.C.
281, that the trial production does not
amount to the date of actual production
under the Government Order dated 30th
September, 1982.

12. The facts of the case are covered
by the Division Bench decision of this
Court in Magnum Papers Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
State of U.P. and others, 2003 U.P.T.C.
354 (vide Paragraphs 10 & 11).
13.

Following
the
aforesaid
decision, the writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 16.9.1987 is
quashed
and
the
Divisional
Level
Committee, Meerut is directed to grant
eligibility certificate under Section 4-A to
the petitioner as prayed for forthwith. Till
grant
of
eligibility
certificate
the
assessment
proceedings
for
the
assessment years 1983-84 to 1988-89
shall remain stayed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 8.9.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38686 of 2003

Vijay Shanker Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri G.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 227-writ of
mandamus-seeking
direction
for
expeditious disposal of civil suit-10,000
to 15000 cases pending before the
concerned
court-held-such
direction
cannot be issued-suitable remedy to
ameliorate the situation-by enhancing
the strength of judges.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

The
petitioner
has
prayed
for
expeditious disposal of a suit. It is not
proper for us to give any such direction in