# Omveer Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2019) 4 ILRA 839 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2019-11-28 - **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 1057 of 2019 - **Bench:** Biswanath Somadder, Ajay Bhanot - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/omveer-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44958 - **Pages:** 6 ## Headnote Rules, 1968: Rule 5(2) - There cannot be any change in the site of any shop or sub-shop except for "very cogent reasons" and that too, such reasons are required "to be recorded in writing". (Para 6) Excise Commissioner while passing the order, merely referred to the proposal of District Magistrate, Bijnor who merely reiterated the observations made by District Excise Officer, Bijnor. Above mentioned authorities are ordered to examine the issue afresh, in accordance with the provisions of law. Writ Petition allowed. (E-4) Present petition is against order dated 02.08.2019, passed by Excise Commissioner, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh. 840 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES ## Text 4 All. Omveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 839 undertaking clearly refer to status of the person as a corporation or an undertaking only, while university is primarily seen and understood as an educational institution and not a corporation or undertaking. 12. Being a provision creating liability under a taxing status, it has to be strictly read and no other rule of interpretation is required to be invoked. In that regard in A.V. Fernandez Vs. State of Kerala A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 657, it was held- "29. It is no doubt true that in construing fiscal statutes and in determining the liability of a subject to tax one must have regard to the strict letter of the law and not merely to the spirit of the statute or the substance of the law. If the Revenue satisfies the Court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case is not covered within the four corners of the provisions of the taxing statute, no tax can be imposed by inference or by analogy or by trying to probe into the intentions of the legislature and by considering what was the substance of the matter." 13. Inasmuch as, the assessee being a university does not naturally or freely fall within the description of any of the persons specified under Clause (a) (e) of the Notification No. 2401 dated 27.4.1987. No attempt is to be made to force it to fit into description of any person made liable under the notification. Hence, the assessee was never required to make deduction of tax at source on payment made to its contractors. Therefore, no penalty was leviable on that count. 14. In view of the above, question of law is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of revisionist-assessee and against the respondent-revenue. The revision is allowed. ---------- (2019)12 ILR A839 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.11.2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE BISWANATH SOMADDER, J. THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J. Writ Tax No. 1057 of 2019 Omveer Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Hemendra Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra A. Relocation of premises - Uttar Pradesh Number and Location of Excise Shops Rules, 1968: Rule 5(2) - There cannot be any change in the site of any shop or sub-shop except for "very cogent reasons" and that too, such reasons are required "to be recorded in writing". (Para 6) Excise Commissioner while passing the order, merely referred to the proposal of District Magistrate, Bijnor who merely reiterated the observations made by District Excise Officer, Bijnor. Above mentioned authorities are ordered to examine the issue afresh, in accordance with the provisions of law. Writ Petition allowed. (E-4) Present petition is against order dated 02.08.2019, passed by Excise Commissioner, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh. 840 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (Delivered by Hon'ble Biswanath Somadder, J.) 1. The subject matter of challenge in the instant writ proceeding is an order dated 2nd August, 2019, of the Excise Commissioner, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh [as communicated by the Deputy Excise Commissioner (Licensing)]. 2. By the impugned order, the Excise Commissioner, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, has allowed transfer of a foreign liquor shop belonging to the private respondent no. 8 from one site to another. The site where the shop is sought to be transferred is a site where the petitioner has an existing licence to sell foreign liquor. The writ petitioner, feeling aggrieved, has thus filed the writ petition. 3. For convenience, the impugned order dated 2nd August, 2019, issued by respondent no. 3 is set out hereinbelow:- "Qkby la[;k& 1057@19 bZ esy@jftLVMZ dk;kZy; vkcdkjh vk;qDr] mRrj izns'k] iz;kxjkt la[;k& 12932 @nl ykbZ0&11@th&12x@2019&20@fctukSj izs"kd] vkcdkjh vk;qDr] mRrj izns'kA lsok esa] ftykf/kdkjh] fctukSjA fnukad% vxLr 02] 2019 fo"k;%& tuin fctukSj esa O;ofLFkr fons'kh efnjk nqdku dk LFkkukUrj.k fd;s tkus ds lEca/k esaA egksn;] d`i;k mi;qZDr fo"k;d izdj.k esa iszf"kr vius i= la[;k&779@ft0vk0vf/k0@nqdku LFkk0@2019&20@fctukSj@ fnukad %29-07-2019 dk lanHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsaA lanfHkZr iz=kUrxZr izsf"kr izLrko ,oa fd;s x;s vuqjks/k ij fopkjksijkUr vkcdkjh vk;qDr] mRrj izns'k }kjk vkns'k fnukad% 02-082019 ds vUrxZr tuin dh 01 fons'kh efnjk nqdku dks v/kksfyf[kr rkfydk ds dkye&3 ls dkye&06 ds LFky ij LFkkukUrfjr fd;s tkus dh vuqefr fuEu izfrca/kks ds v/khu iznku dj nh gS%& e n LFk kuk Ur j.k gsrq izL rkf or nq dk u dk uk e @ orZ ek u v of LFk fr fu dk ; dh izkf LFkf r okf"kZd ,ethD;w@ csfld ykblsa l Qhl IzkLrkf or vofLF kfr dk Li"V mYys[ k v{kka'k @ ns'kkU rj izLrkf or vofL Fkfr ij fudk ; dh izkfLFk fr IzkLrkfor fudk; o izkfLFkfr ij okf"kZd ,eth-D;w-@csfld ykblsal Qhl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 fo ns' kh ef nj k L; ksg jk ua0 &1 1⁄4l kse ok j dk ck tk j1⁄2 29] 20 34 7 @ 78] 58 07 1 ux j ikf y dk :0 19945 21 L;ksgj k ua0&1 1⁄4QCck jk pkSd1⁄2 29]21 251@ 78]58 411 Ukx j ikf yd k :0 1994521 4 All. Omveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 841 izfrcU/k& 1& LFkkukUrfjr uohu LFky ij nqdkuksa dh izkfLFkfr m0iz0 vkcdkjh 1⁄4nqdkuksa dh la[;k ,oa fLFkfr1⁄2 fu;ekoyh&1968 1⁄4 ;Fkk la'kksf/kr1⁄2 esa fufgr izkfo/kkukuqlkj lqfuf'pr dh tk;A 2& nqdkuksa dh izkfLFkfr fu/kkZj.k esa bl dk;kZy; }kjk iwoZ esa tkjh ekxZn'kZd fl)kUr fnukad 1502-2002 ds izkfo/kkuksa dks Hkh n`f"Vxr j[kk tk;A 3& uohu LFkyksa ij nqdkuksa ds LFkkukUrj.k ls mlds vkl&ikl igys ls O;ofLFkr@ lapkfyr nqdkusa dqizHkkfor u gksA 4& uohu LFkyksa @vofLFkfr ij nqdkuksa dks LFkkukUrfjr djus ls fdlh izdkj ds fookn@fof/kd fookn dh fLFkfr mRiUu u gksA 5& ;fn dksbZ nqdku fuEu fudk; dh izkfLFkfr ls mPp fudk; dh izkfLFkfr esa LFkkukUrfjr dh tk jgh gS rks fu;ekuqlkj okafNr /kujkf'k tek djkbZ tk;sA 6& izR;sd n'kk esa vfuok;Z :i ls ek0 loksZPp U;k;ky; ds }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 15-122016 ,oa 31-03-2017 ,oa 11-07-2017 dk vuqikyu lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;sA d`i;k rnuqlkj vko';d dk;Zokgh vey esa ykus dk d"V djsaA Hkonh; g0 viBuh; 02-08-19 1⁄4Mk0 lqjs'k pUnz1⁄2 mi vkcdkjh vk;qDr 1⁄4ykblsflax1⁄2 dk;kZy; vkcdkjh vk;qDr] mRrj izns'kA la[;k @nl ykbZ0&11@th&12x@2019&20@ fctukSj@rnfnukadA izfrfyfi fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr%& 1& la;qDr vkcdkjh vk;qDr] esjB tksu] esjBA 2& mi vkcdkjh vk;qDr] eksjknkckn izHkkjA 3& ftyk vkcdkjh vf/kdkjh] fctukSjA @ 1⁄4Mk0 lqjs'k pUnz1⁄2 mi vkcdkjh vk;qDr 1⁄4ykblsflax1⁄2 dk;kZy; vkcdkjh vk;qDr] mRrj izns'kA" 4. A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Excise Commissioner, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, has merely acted on the proposal forwarded by the District Magistrate, Bijnor, being the respondent no. 4 before us. This proposal dated 29th July, 2019, is also required to be noticed and is set out hereinbelow:- "izs"kd] ftykf/kdkjh] fctukSjA lsok esa] vkcdkjh vk;qDr m0iz0 iz;kxjktA la[;k 779@ft0vk0vf/k0@nqdku LFkk0@2019&20 @fctukSj@fnukad tqykbZ] 29 2019 fo"k;%& fons'kh efnjk nqdku L;ksgkjk ua0&1 dk LFkkukUrj.k lkseokj dk cktkj ls Qookjk pkSd fd;s tkus lEcU/k esaA egksn;] 842 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES d`i;k mijksDr fo"k;d vkidks lEcksf/kr Jherh fu'kk vxzoky vuqKkih fons'kh efnjk nqdku L;ksgkjk ua0&1 ds izkFkZuk i= dk lanHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsa] mi vkcdkjh vk;qDr] eqjknkckn izHkkj ds ek/;e ls ftyk vcdkjh vf/kdkjh fctukSj dh vk[;k ekWxh x;h FkhA ftl ij ftyk vkcdkjh vf/kdkjh] fctukSj }kjk lkseokj dk cktkj esa mDr nqdku dk Hkkjh tufojks/k gksus rFkk nqdku ds lapkyu esa vk jgh dfBukbZ ds dkj.k mDr nqdku dk LFkkukUrj.k djus gsrq vk[;k nh x;h Fkh rFkk LFkkukUrj.k dk izLrko pWwfd esjs ek/;e ls izsf"kr fd;k tkuk FkkA vr,o vkcdkjh fujh{kd {ks=&3 ,oa ftyk vcdkjh vf/kdkjh fctukSj dh vk[;k ds vuqlkj esjs }kjk fons'kh efnjk nqdku L;ksgkjk ua0&1 ds LFkkukUrj.k dk izLrko fu/kkZfjr izk:i esa fuEuor~ gS %& dz0la0 en LFkkuk Urj.k gsrq izLrkf or nqdku dk uke@ orZek u vofLF kfr v{kkal @ns'k kUrj fudk ; dh izkfLFk fr okf "kZ d yk blsa l Qh l @ , e0 th 0 D;w 0 izL rkf or vo fLF kfr dk Li" V mY ys[ k v{ kka'k @ ns'k kUr j OkrZek u LFky ls izLrkf or LFky dh nwjh izL rkf or vo fLF kfr ij fu dk ; dh izkf LFk fr izLrkf or fudk ; dh izkfLFk fr ij okf"kZd @ ,e0t h0 D;w 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 L;ksgj k ua0&1 1⁄4lkseo kj dk cktkj 1⁄2 2920347 @7858071 uxj ikfy dk :0 19 94 52 1 @ & L; ksgk jk ua0 &1 1⁄4Q Ook jk pkS d1⁄2 2921 25 1 @ 7858 41 1 1-4 fd0eh 0 Ukx j ikf y dk :0 19945 21@ & izLrkfor vofLFkfr ds vkl&ikl igys ls lapkfyr nqdkuksa dk fooj.kA Ekn nqdku dk uke okf"kZd ykblsal Qhl izLrkfor vofLFkfr ls nwjh 1⁄4fd0eh01⁄2 10 11 12 13 1 L;ksgjk ua0&2 1⁄4jkeyhyk xzkm.M1⁄2 :0 3290000@& 1-3 fd0eh0 2 L;ksgjk ua0&3 1⁄4eks0 bLykeuxj LVs'ku jksM+1⁄2 :0 1010000@& 0-8 fd0eh0 mDr nqdku dk izLrkfor uohu LFky ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fnukad 15-12-2016] 31-03-2017 ,oa 11-07-2017 ls ckf/kr ugh gSA vr% jktLo ,oa tufgr es mDr efnjk dh nqdku dk LFkkukUrj.k L;ksgkjk ua0&11⁄4QOokjk pkSd1⁄2 dh Lohd`fr djus dk d"V djsaA Hkonh; g0 viBuh; 29-7-19 jekdkUr ik.Ms;1⁄2 ftykf/kdkjh] fctukSjA" 5. In order to examine as to whether the impugned order dated 2nd August, 2019, requires intervention by the writ Court one needs to consider the relevant provision of the Uttar Pradesh Number and Location of Excise Shops Rules, 1968. The relevant provision, in the facts of the instant case, is sub rule (2) of Rule 5 of Uttar Pradesh Number And Location of Excise Shops Rules, 1968, which reads as follows:- "(2). No change in the site of any shop or sub-shop shall, except for very cogent reasons to be recorded in 4 All. Omveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 843 writing, shall be permitted during the currency of a settlement. The location of all shops and sub-shops shall be clearly defined at settlement in order to prevent any shifting of sites." 6. The above quoted sub rule makes it clear that there cannot be any change in the site of any shop or sub-shop except for "very cogent reasons" and that too, such reasons are required "to be recorded in writing". Therefore, we need to consider, at first, as to whether reasons have been recorded in writing and, secondly, whether those reasons are very cogent reasons or not. 7. The impugned order dated 2nd August, 2019, reveals the following reason for the purpose of allowing the site of the foreign liquor shop belonging to the private respondent no.8 to be changed:- "lanfHkZr i=kUrxZr izsf"kr izLrko ,oa fd;s x;s vuqjks/k ij fopkjksijkUr vkcdkjh vk;qDr] mRrj izns'k }kjk vkns'k fnukad 02-08-2019 ds vUrxZr tuin dh 01 fons'kh efnjk nqdku dks v/kksfyf[kr rkfydk ds dkye &3 ls dkye&06 ds LFky ij LFkkukUrfjr fd;s tkus dh vuqefr fuEu izfrca/kks ds v/khu iznku dj nh gS%- "On consideration of the proposal forwarded vide the letter in question and the request made therein, the Excise Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, vide order dated 02.08.2019 has permitted for shifting of 01 English Wine Shop of the district from the place mentioned in column-3 to the place mentioned in column 6 of the table given below subject to the following restriction:-" (English translation) 8. It is palpably evident from a plain reading of the above sentence that the Excise Commissioner, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, has merely referred to the proposal of the District Magistrate, Bijnor, dated 29th July, 2019, as a basis for consideration of change of site of the foreign liquor shop. On the face of it, this sentence clearly reflects non-application of mind on the part of the Excise Commissioner, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, as well as the respondent no. 3 (under whose signature the impugned order dated 2nd August 2019 has been communicated). It cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed as a "very cogent reason" which is a condition required to be followed for the purpose of permitting change in the site of any shop or sub-shop. 9. At this stage, we must also take notice of the proposal dated 29th July, 2019, which was issued by the District Magistrate, Bijnor. This proposal of the District Magistrate, Bijnor, also reveals non-application of mind inasmuch as the District Magistrate, Bijnor, has merely parroted the observations made by the District Excise Officer, Binjor. The District Magistrate, Bijnor, never applied his independent mind while making such a proposal which may have an adverse effect upon the existing business of the writ petitioner. That apart in any event, even the proposal of the District Magistrate, Bijnor, dated 29th July, 2019, is bereft of "very cogent reasons" being the sine qua non for the purpose of allowing change in the site of any shop or sub-shop selling foreign liquor in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 10. For reasons stated above, we have no hesitation to set aside not only the order dated 2nd August, 2019, but also the proposal of the District Magistrate, 844 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Bijnor, dated 29th July, 2019, which forms the basis of issuance of the impugned order dated 2nd August, 2019. 11. The District Magistrate, Bijnor, shall examine the matter afresh and communicate his decision to the Excise Commissioner within a period of three weeks from date. The Excise Commissioner, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, thereafter, shall take a decision in the matter strictly in accordance with the provision as contained under sub rule (2) of Rule 5 of Uttar Pradesh Number And Location of Excise Shops Rules, 1968, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the writ petitioner and the private respondent no. 8. 12. The entire exercise, in terms of this order, shall be completed by the Excise Commissioner, Prayagarj, Uttar Pradesh, being the respondent no. 2, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks, but not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of the decision from the office of the respondent no. 4, being the District Magistrate, Bijnor. 13. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. ---------- (2019)12 ILR A844 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.11.2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE BISWANATH SOMADDER, J. THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J. Writ Tax No. 1120 of 2019 M/s Ingersoll- Rand Technologies & Services Private Limited ...Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Atul Gupta, Sri Abhishek Kumar Tripathi, Sri Pulak Maheshwari Counsel for the Respondents: A.S.G.I.,C.S.C., Sri Om Prakash Srivastava A. Tax Law - Uttar Pradesh Goods & Services Tax Rules, 2017: Section 140(3), Rules 117, 118, 119, 120-A Every registered person who has submitted a declaration electronically in Form G.S.T. T.R.A.N - 1 within the period specified in Rule 117 or Rule 118 or Rule 119 or Rule 120 is allowed to revise such declaration once and submit the revised declaration in Form G.S.T T.R.A.N - 1 electronically on the common portal, but cannot go beyond the time-frame provided under Rule 117 of the Act of 2017. The period of extension has been statutorily circumscribed at 90 days and that too is possible only on recommendation of the Council. (Para 7, 8) The Court refused to interfere but held it open for the Council to take a decision in the matter. Writ Petition disposed of. (E-4) (Delivered by Hon'ble Biswanath Somadder, J.) 1. The writ petitioner - company has approached this Court essentially seeking its intervention to allow the writ petitioner to file a revised declaration in FORM G.S.T. T.R.A.N-1 or manually accept the same to enable the writ petitioner - company to avail the credit pertaining to SAD (Special Additional Duty) amounting to Rs. 22,51,380.21/-; which, according to the writ petitioner was not claimed by it, inadvertently. 2. The question as to whether we can issue a writ in the nature of