H. N. SETH, J. - (1.) THIS petition under article 226 of the Constitution is directed against a demand notice dated 27th June, 1973, issued by the Assistant Sugar Commissioner, Moradabad, requiring the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 6,787.52 as purchase tax on purchase of sugarcane during the year 1972-73, along with interest, as required by the U.P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act, 1961.
(2.) THE petitioner, Mohd. Hanif, holds a licence under the provisions of the U.P. Khandsari Manufacturers Licensing Order, 1967. He claims that as required by rule 14 of the Sugarcane Purchase Tax Rule, 1961, he submitted returns every month showing the quantity of sugarcane purchased by him during the preceding month, and paid the purchase tax thereon. According to him he has paid the entire amount of tax due for the year 1972-73 and no amount on that account was outstanding against him. The assessing officer, without complying with the provisions of the Rules, without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, and without serving upon him any assessment order, issued a demand notice dated 27th June, 1973, requiring him to pay purchase tax amounting to Rs. 6,787.52 along with interest. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the Assistant Sugar Commissioner, Moradabad, which is still pending consideration. While filing the appeal, the petitioner made a request that the proceedings for realisation of the tax, interest and penalty be stayed but respondent No. 2 rejected that request on the ground that it was not possible to do so. In the circumstances, the petitioner was left with no other alternative but to approach this court under article 226 of the Constitution and to pray for a writ of certiorari for quashing the aforesaid notice of demand. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the validity of the impugned notice of demand, inter alia, on the ground that the Uttar Pradesh sugarcane Purchase Tax Act, 1961, under which the aforesaid notice of demand has been issued, is invalid and unconstitutional. A perusal of the writ petition shows that the challenge to the constitutionality of the aforementioned enactment can be classed under the following heads : (1) The State Legislature had not jurisdiction to legislate in respect of purchase tax under item No. 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. (2) The provisions of the U.P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act, 1961, being inconsistent with those contained in the U.P. Sales Tax Act are inoperative and result in the contravention of article 14 of the Constitution. (3) The U.P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act otherwise also contravenes article 14 of the Constitution and is invalid, and (4) the provisions contained in the U.P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act, in respect of penalty and interest leviable thereunder, are against general principles of taxation.
(3.) IN Civil Misc. Writ No. 2791 of 1971, Basti Sugar Mills v. State of U.P. decided on 14th February, 1972, a Division Bench of this Court relying upon a Supreme Court decision in the case of Andra Sugars Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh ([1968] 21 S.T.C. 212 (S.C.); [1968] 1 S.C.R. 705) held that the subject-matter of legislation of the U.P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act, 1961, is covered by item No. 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and, therefore, the State Legislature had ample jurisdiction to enact the same. We are, therefore, of opinion that the Act cannot be struck down on the ground of want of legislative competence.;