- (1.) A. P. MISRA, J. In view of the exchange of affidavits an in terms of rule of court the present petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.
(2.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of order dated June 16, 1993 (annexure 11 to the writ petition) passed by the Divisional Level Committee, the respondent No. 2; for quashing the earlier order dated July 8, 1991 (annexure 5 to the writ petition), which rejects the claim of the petitioner for grant of exemption under section 4-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948; and has also further prayed for consequential order pertaining to the stay of assessment proceedings. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner's application under section 4-A was rejected by the respondent No. 2 on July 8, 1991, against which the petitioner preferred a review application which is annexure 6 to the writ petition. The said respondent rejected the review application of the petitioner without giving any opportunity and on a new ground, not raised earlier. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in this Court and this Court by means of an order dated March 12, 1993 (annexure 9 to the writ petition) directed the said respondent to pass fresh orders on the review application of the petitioner after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on the additional objection raised at the time of review. The petitioner thereafter filed the said order before the said respondent and the impugned order has been passed on June 16, 1993 (annexure 11 to the writ petition), again rejecting the review application of the petitioner. The contention raised is that in spite of the direction issued by this Court the said authority did not give an opportunity to the petitioner and rejected the said review application and committed the same illegality which was committed earlier as mentioned in the order of this Court dated March 12, 1993. The petitioner referred to his exemption application which is annexure 12, and has again reiterated that the said authority has not considered the matter. The petitioner also reiterated that the said authority should have considered the amendment made in section 4-A by introducing the explanation to the said section and also should have considered the notification dated December 26, 1985, No. ST-11-7558/x-9 (208) - 1981 U. P. Act XV/48/order 85. The said authority if would have given an opportunity to the petitioner, the petitioner would have placed the relevant notification and the amendment on which the said authority did not apply its mind. It is not necessary for this Court to go into various grounds raised by the petitioner including the said amendment as we feel that the impugned order is not sustainable on the sole ground that the respondent No. 2 in spite of order issued by this Court on March 12, 1993 did not give an opportunity to the petitioner before passing the said order. The petitioner has specifically averred this fact in paragraph 26 of the writ petition, which has not been denied in the counter-affidavit but has been averred that it was not necessary to give a personal hearing. The stand taken is very unfortunate as we find that this Court specifically passed an order for giving opportunity. There is no other option for the respondent-authority and the stand should not have been taken by the respondent that the petitioner is not entitled for any opportunity. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated June 16, 1993 is not sustainable and is hereby quashed. The matter is sent back to the respondent No. 2 to give a personal hearing and aopportunity to the petitioner in terms of order dated March 12, 1993, passed in the earlier writ petition and then pass a fresh order within three months from the date certified copy of this order is filed before it. The petitioner will file certified copy of this order within three weeks from today.
(3.) UNTIL disposal of the said review application of the petitioner the recovery proceedings for the assessment years 1987-88 to 1992-93 both under the U. P. and Central Sales Tax Acts shall remain stayed. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is allowed. Costs on parties. Writ petition allowed. .;