- (1.) We have heard Shri Subham Agarwal, holding brief of Shri Piyush Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Tax No.502 of 2008; 503 of 2008 and 504 of 2008. Shri Om Prakash and Shri Naziruzzaman appear in Writ Tax Nos. 492 of 2008 and 1096 of 2008 respectively. Shri C.B. Tripathi, Special Counsel appears for the State respondents.
(2.) All the petitioners are engaged in the business of purchase of paddy within the State of UP and manufacturer of rice. They sell the manufactured rice both within and outside the State of UP. In these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the notices issued under Section 21 (2) of the UP Trade Tax Act by the Additional Commissioner (Grade -1), Commercial Tax to show cause as to why permission be not given to re -open the assessments of trade tax on the ground that while assessing the petitioners to Central Sales Tax, a set off/adjustment has been given of the amount of State tax paid on the purchase of paddy. The notices proceed on the basis that there is no provision under the UP Trade Tax Act for giving benefit of Section 8 (2A) of the Central Sales Tax to the manufacturers of rice for giving adjustment of the State tax paid on paddy in the Central Sales Tax, referring to the clarification in the Circular letter no.2313 of the Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. dated 29.3.2007.
(3.) The petitioner has also challenged the Circular dated 29.3.2007 on the ground that the Commissioner of Trade Tax has no jurisdiction to issue such circular influencing the assessing authorities to exercise their powers of assessment in one way or other.;