# M/s Agarwal Dal and Oil Mill v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 165
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-02-11
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1246 of 1988
- **Bench:** M. Katju, Prakash Krishna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-agarwal-dal-and-oil-mill-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-39022
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Sales Tax (now Trade Tax) Act-
Section 4-A- the order rejecting the
application
for
grant
of
eligibility
certificate
are
based
on
irrelevant
considerations and the petitioner is
entitled for exemption even if it was
trading in oil seed.

Held- Para 8
In view of the above the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned orders dated
16th March, 1988, communicated by the
letter dated 31.3.1988 (Annexure 3 to
the writ petition) and the order dated
2.6.1988 filed as Annexure cA-1 to the
counter affidavit rejecting the review
application
of
the
petitioner
are
quashed. Since no other ground was
taken for refusing to grant eligibility
certificate to the petitioner, we direct
the respondents to issue the requisite
eligibility certificate to the petitioner
under section 4 A of the U.P. Trade Tax
Act.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] M/s Agarwal Dal and Oil Mill V. State of U.P. and others 165
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD FEBRUARY 11, 2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1246 of 1988

M/s Agarwal Dal and Oil Mill ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.V. Gupta
Sri Shashi Kant Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.P. Kesharwani, S.C.

U.P. Sales Tax (now Trade Tax) Act-
Section 4-A- the order rejecting the
application
for
grant
of
eligibility
certificate
are
based
on
irrelevant
considerations and the petitioner is
entitled for exemption even if it was
trading in oil seed.

Held- Para 8
In view of the above the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned orders dated
16th March, 1988, communicated by the
letter dated 31.3.1988 (Annexure 3 to
the writ petition) and the order dated
2.6.1988 filed as Annexure cA-1 to the
counter affidavit rejecting the review
application
of
the
petitioner
are
quashed. Since no other ground was
taken for refusing to grant eligibility
certificate to the petitioner, we direct
the respondents to issue the requisite
eligibility certificate to the petitioner
under section 4 A of the U.P. Trade Tax
Act.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Krishna, J.)

1. The petitioner has challenged the
orders dated 31.3.1988 and 2.6.1986
rejecting the petitioner's application for
grant of eligibility certificate under
section 4A of the U.P. Sales Tax (now
Trade Tax) Act by the Divisional Level
Committee.

2. The petitioner is a partnership
firm registered under the Partnership Act
and it established a new industry to
manufacture oil in the year 1983. The
petitioner was also carrying on the
business of oil seeds (Telhan). The
petitioner 's application for the grant of
eligibility certificate was rejected solely
on the ground that the unit besides
production of oil is also doing trading
business of Telhan, vide annexure 3 to the
writ petition. The said order is dated
16.3.1988 communicated to the petitioner
by means of letter dated 31.3.1988.
Thereafter the petitioner filed review
application and also placed reliance upon
the Circular of the Commissioner of
Trade Tax, dated 25.2.1988 with respect
to the new units established in between
1.10.1982 to 31st March, 1990. However,
the said review application was also
dismissed. The certified copy of the order
rejecting the review application was not
annexed alongwith the writ petition.
However,
this
Court
on
7.12.1988
directed the Standing Counsel to file the
copy of the order passed on the review
application,
by
which
the
review
application was rejected. The said order
has been filed as annexure CA-1 to the
counter affidavit sworn by Sri Shyam
Sundar Chaurasia filed on behalf of
District Industries Centre. A perusal of
the same shows that review application
was also rejected on the same ground.
Aggrieved against the aforesaid two
orders the present writ petition has been
filed.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
3. On behalf of the respondents two
counter affidavits on similar allegations
have been filed.. It has been stated that the
date of commencement of production is
31st March, 1983 and the application for
the grant of eligibility certificate was
rejected in view of the report given by the
Deputy Commissioner (A) Sales Tax,
Allahabad by the letter no. 1450 dated
26.5.1988. In the said report it was stated
that " The unit apart from production and
sale of oil and oil cake is also engaged in
trade of oil seeds. Oil seed is used for
manufacture of oil and oil cake. As per
O.S.T. registration certificate the unit is
authorized for trading of oil seeds. An
apprehension was expressed in the said
letter that the petitioner can avail double
benefit of exemption causing loss to the
State exchequer and that the statement of
the petitioner that they do no do trading of
produced items and no tax evasion is
involved is incorrect and baseless.

4. We have heard Sri Shashi Kant
counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P.
Kesharwani Standing Counsel for the
respondents.

5. From the undisputed facts it is
clear that the petitioner has established a
new unit of manufacturing oil. It is also
not disputed that the petitioner is also
carrying on the trading business of oil
seeds. The Divisional Level Committee
has rejected the application of the
petitioner
for
grant
of
eligibility
certificate only on the ground that the
petitioner is also carrying on the trading
business of oil seeds. In this connection
the Circular dated 26.2.1988 of the
Commissioner is relevant. Paragraph 4 of
the Circular states:

"Shasan ko yeh bhi sabndarwhit kiya
the ki agar nayee ikayee daar kisi vastu ke
kraya vikraya ka bhi vyopar kiya jata hai
to asisi ikayee bhee chhoot kee patra hogi.
Shsan ne yeh nirdesh diye hain ki aisi ikai
to swayam ke dwara nirmit mal ki vikri
par chhoot diye jane men koyee aapatti
nahin hai kintu yeh sunishcit kar liya jay
ki aisich vastu jinka kray vikray ka vaipar
kiya ja rah hai, ikayee dwara utpadit
vastuon se Bhim ho taki karapvanchan
kee koyee gunjaysh na rahe."

6. Counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that in view of the said Circular
the rejection of the application for grant
of eligibility certificate by the Divisional
Level Committee is totally illegal. In
paragraph 9 of the writ petition the
petitioner has placed reliance upon the
said
Circular
dated
26.2.1988
of
Commissioner Sales Tax. In reply the
respondents in the counter affidavit have
not stated even a single word as to how
the said Circular is not applicable to the
facts of the petitioner's case. Reply to
paragraph 9 of the writ petition has been
given in paragraph 3 of the affidavit of Sri
S.B.P. Gupta, Sales Tax Officer Grade II.
In another counter affidavit of Sri Shyam
Sundar Chaurasia only an apprehension
has been mentioned in paragraph 10 that
the unit can evade tax by resale of unpaid
oil seed to such customer who can avail
facilities under section 4 A.

7. Having considered the respective
submissions of the parties, we are of the
opinion that the order rejecting the
application
for
grant
of
eligibility
certificate
are
based
on
irrelevant
consideration and the petitioner is entitled
for exemption under section 4 A even if it
is was trading in oil seed. There is no such
condition under section 4 A that a person
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Miss. Sunita Sharma and another V. D.I.O.S., Mathura and others 167
who is also doing trading business cannot
carry on manufacturing unit of a different
commodity. Even the Circular issued by
the Commissioner of Trade Tax does not
impose any such condition. On the
contrary it says that the bar has only been
imposed for not trading in the product and
not with the raw material. The oil seed is
not the product of the unit of the
petitioner and it was also not the case of
the
respondents
either
before
the
Divisional Level Committee or before this
Court that the petitioner is also carrying
on the trading activities in oil or oil cake.

8. In view of the above the writ
petition is allowed. The impugned orders
dated 16th March, 1988, communicated
by the letter dated 31.3.1988 (Annexure 3
to the writ petition) and the order dated
2.6.1988 filed as Annexure CA-1 to the
counter affidavit rejecting the review
application of the petitioner are quashed.
Since no other ground was taken for
refusing to grant eligibility certificate to
the petitioner, we direct the respondents
to issue the requisite eligibility certificate
to the petitioner under section 4 A of the
U.P. Trade Tax Act.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.1.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.B. MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14333 of 1998

Miss. Sunita Sharma and another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
District Inspector of Schools and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri V.C. Misra
Sri Vikrant Pandey
Sri Krishna Murari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vashishtha Tiwari, S.C.

Constitution of India- Article 226- the
refusal in not making sanction and
approval of the appointment by the
District Inspector of Schools is not
legally
judifiable
as
the
said
ban
dated29.6.1991
was
superseded
by
another G.O. dated 26 September, 1991
by
which
the
ban
for
making
appointment against the short term
vacancy was lifted.

Held - Para 9

The averments made in the counter
affidavit of the District Inspector of
School has been controverted and the
contentions of the writ petition have
been
reiterated
on
behalf
of
the
petitioner.

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.B. Misra, J.)

Heard Sri V.C. Misra, learned Senior
Advocate with Sri Vikrant Pandey,
counsel for the petitioner and learned