- (1.) FACTUAL matrix in the case, as set out in the writ petition, is that on October 20, 1980, petitioner M/s. Swastik Metal Printers, was provisionally registered with the Directorate of Industries, U. P. , for printed iron containers only. On February 3, 1983, the petitioner-firm was permanently registered with the Director of Industries, U. P. , for printed metal containers from P. C. R. C. sheets only. In the same registration certificate, on the top of it, it is mentioned "use of tin-sheets partly allowed only". On December 17, 1984, the petitioner preferred an application before the Director of Industries for grant of exemption from sales tax under section 4-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. On January 9, 1985, the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Saharanpur, in the letter addressed to the Joint Director, Industries, indicated that the unit had applied for the manufacture of tin containers and for amendment/extension of the registration. In consequence thereof, the Director of Industries, Kanpur, granted the registration certificate for the manufacture of tin containers and on that basis, it was indicated in the certificate of registration that the petitioner would be allowed to manufacture tin containers using partly the tin-sheets. It was also indicated that although the unit was registered for the manufacturing of P. C. R. C. sheets earlier and later on, was allowed to manufacture metal printed containers, but the unit considering the demand only used the tin-sheets as a result of which application of the petitioner for grant of exemption was objected to. It was further indicated in the letter that as the headquarter had granted permission to the petitioner to use tin-sheets, hence the unit had become entitled to use tin-sheets for manufacturing containers, hence it is entitled for grant of exemption under section 4-A. The General Manager, requested the Joint Director, Industries, to take necessary action in the light of the aforesaid facts. In the latter dated March 30, 1987, the Regional Committee in its letter addressed to the petitioner, indicated that when the unit according to the registration, was entitled only for the manufacture of P. C. R. C. sheets but the Sales Tax Department did not accept the purchase of the raw material as P. C. R. C. sheets. The enquiry has revealed that the petitioner has manipulated in the bills. Thereafter, he himself added "p. C. R. C. sheets" in the said bill in his own handwriting. The voucher which is available in the office of the Sales Tax Department does not indicate the fact regarding purchase of P. C. R. C. sheets when in the copy of which was given to the Industries Department, P. C. R. C. sheets was mentioned, hence the report of the Industries Department regarding the bill, appears to be suspicious.
(2.) IN para 25 of the writ petition, it has been averred that the petition made first purchases from M/s. Chunni Singh and Company vide bill dated February 12, 1983. Without entering into the dispute at the present moment whether the purchases made were of tin-sheets or of P. C. R. C. sheets, it was stated that first of all the said purchase was prior to the grant of permanent registration certificate on March 31, 1983 and inasmuch as the petitioner had not manufactured containers out of the said raw materials, the petitioner, on receipt of the orders dated July 27, 1983, purchased P. C. R. C. sheets vide bill dated January 6, 1983 and thereafter, after manufacturing printed tin-containers out of the P. C. R. C. sheets sold to M/s. Pawan Product, Kanpur, vide bill dated November 6, 1983 and claimed the exemption. In para 5 of the counter-affidavit, it was stated that the petitioner's application for grant of exemption was considered by the Divisional Level Committee. It was further stated since the petitioner made interpolation and forgery in the bill and further he was found not entitled for exemption under section 4-A, the exemption application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Divisional Level Committee. It was further stated that the petitioner was not entitled to any interim order, since the petitioner was not entitled to use tin-sheets as raw material and such for consideration the exemption application, the tin-sheets cannot be taken by the answering respondent. In another counter-affidavit dated August 18, 1989, sworn by Sri S. K. Awasthi, it was stated that the provisional registration certificate was earlier issued to the petitioner on June 8, 1982 but the same expired on account of the fact that unit was not established. The provisional certificate was valid only up to six months and could be renewed for another six months by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Saharanpur, on application to be filed. Second extension could be granted by Joint Director and any extension beyond that can be granted by the Commissioner and Director in accordance with prevailing policy. The petitioner was granted a provisional certificate on June 8, 1982 which expired after the expiry of six months but however, it was admitted that permanent registration was granted with effect from March 20, 1983, but it was for printed metal containers from P. C. R. C. sheets only. Tin-sheet was a prohibited item and that is why in his application for permanent registration, the raw material was mentioned as P. C. R. C. sheets. The petitioner was granted registration for the manufacture of printed metal containers from P. C. R. C. sheets. Only Director of Industries could permit unit to manufacture even tin containers, if the manufacture is done partly from tin-sheets and on the receipt of the petitioner's application for inclusion of the tin-sheet also as raw material, the Director of Industries by means of his order dated December 13, 1984, permitted that same to be included. Thereafter, the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Saharanpur, issued orders dated January 8, 1985, permitting the petitioner to use tin-sheet as partly as raw material. A perusal of the averments made in the counter-affidavit, indicates that the petitioner was not permitted to use tin-sheet as raw material for manufacture of tin containers. In another counter-affidavit, filed by the Sales Tax Officer, Sector-6, Saharanpur, revealed that on inspection dated March 6, 1987, it was found that no production had taken place and it was also admitted that the petitioner was getting printing works done from outside. It was also discovered that the printing works remained closed for more than six months. The machines that were found installed at the place of business, e. g. , oven and trolleys, manning printing press, arc lamp, cotton machine and conveyor, sewing machine, line-cum-cutting machine were not working for more than six months because of disconnection of powers. The petitioner filed a fabricated bill in support of the claim of exemption and when confronted with that fact, Sri S. C. Jain, the accountant of the petitioner who appeared along with Manoj Kumar Singh, counsel admitted that there was no plausible explanation for that fabrication of the bill.
(3.) THE Divisional Level Committee considered about the said bill and in its order has indicated that the bill, which was sent to the Industries Department for grant of exemption, contained purchase of tin-sheets, but the bill which was sent to the sales tax authorities did not contain that. Considering the aforesaid facts, the exemption under section 4-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act was not granted to the petitioner. As far as the reasons for non-grant of exemption under section 4-A are concerned, it has been indicated, in another affidavit, wherein it has been averred that machines of the petitioner remained idle and no work was going on for more than six months at the time of inspection, for printing. THE petitioner was not entitled to exemption. That aspect of the matter was not before the Regional Level Committee or before the Divisional Level Committee when the application of the petitioner for grant of exemption of sales tax was under consideration. We have to examine the legality or otherwise of the impugned orders only for the reasons which have been indicated in the order. Any subsequent additional ground to support the said order, which are not indicated in the order, would not justify the action of the State, otherwise whenever an order would be challenged, it could very well be justified by adding other reasons. THE only question, which is relevant for consideration before this Court is as to whether under Explanation 2 (6) of section 4-A, the petitioner was entitled for the exemption or not. It appears that the Divisional Level Committee, while taking into account certain lapses on the part of the petitioner, which have been indicated in the order itself and other circumstances mentioned in the counter-affidavit, did not consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the aforesaid provisions. As we have indicated the firm of the petitioner was registered and was allowed to use tin-sheet partly with effect from January 7, 1985, hence it may not be said that the petitioner used any raw material for which it was not registered. It was incumbent upon the opposite parties to have considered the application of the petitioner in the perspective of the Provisions of section 4-A. Hence this case deserves to be remitted to the Divisional Level Committee again for consideration. In view of what we have indicated hereinabove, the writ petition partly succeeds. A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated June 27, 1987, passed by the Divisional Level Committee contained in annexure 10, is issued. A writ in the nature of mandamus to the Divisional Level Committee is also issued to consider the application of the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Writ petition partly allowed. .;