Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) All the three petitions raises the same controversy and are being decided altogether by a common judgement. For facility, the facts of the writ petitions are being taken into consideration. We have heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, the learned senior advocate along -with Sri Shubham Agrawal, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Tax No. 398 of 2013 and Sri Piyush Agrawal, the learned counsel for the petitioners in the connected writ petitions and Sri C.B. Tripathi, the learned special counsel for the State.
(2.) The State Government promulgated the Uttar Pradesh Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The petitioner challenged the levy of entry tax under the provisions of this Act. The court by a judgment dated 23rd of December, 2011 (JTC Limited v/s. State of U.P. : [2012] 48 VST 281 (All)) dismissed the writ petition and upheld the vires of the Act, against which the petitioner preferred a special leave petition in which an interim order dated January 18, 2012 was passed by the Supreme Court staying the operation of the judgment of the High Court subject to the condition that the petitioner would deposit 50 percent, of the accrued tax liability/arrears under the Act of 2007 and furnish bank guarantee for the balance amount. The petitioner was also required to deposit 50 percent, of the tax liability/arrears including interest and penalty and furnish bank guarantee for the balance amount as and when a demand notice was issued under the U.P. Act of 2007 for the past period. The petitioner was also directed to pay the tax at the prevailing rates for the future period. For facility, the interim order of the Supreme Court dated 18th of January, 2012 is extracted hereunder: "Upon hearing counsel, the court made the following: Order SLP (C) Nos. 124, 125, 131, 137, 139, 177, 180, 181, 194, 198, 200, 244, 246, 282 -286, 531, 544, 1119 -1123, 1219 -1222, 1230, 1504 and 1519 of 2012: Application(s) for exemption from filing official transaction is allowed. Notice to the respondents. The learned counsel appears and accepts notice on behalf of all the respondents in all the matters. The leave granted. In these civil appeals, the appellants and others are questioning the correctness or otherwise of the common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Tax No. 1484 of 2007, etc., dated December 23, 2011 (JTC Limited v/s. State of U.P. : [2012] 48 VST 281 (All)). In the special leave petitions filed, the appellants and others had questioned the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Tax on Entry of Goods Into Local Areas Act, 2007 (U.P. Act, 2007', for short). We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the prayer made for grant of interim relief and also perused the records. We are not inclined to grant the blanket stay order as prayed for by the appellants. Accordingly, we pass the following order: The operation of the impugned judgment and order is stayed subject to the appellants in each case depositing 50 percent, of the accrued tax liability/arrears under the U.P. Act, 2007 and furnish bank guarantee for the balance amount within four weeks from today. It goes without saying, that the aforesaid deposit shall be made after adjusting the amount(s) paid or deposited during the pendency of the writ petitions before the High Court. The appellants are directed to keep the bank guarantee(s) alive during the pendency of these appeals. The amount(s) so deposited/paid and the bank guarantee(s) furnished is subject to the result of the appeals. The appellants shall also deposit 50 percent, of the tax liability/arrears, including interest and penalty, and furnish guarantee for the balance amount as and when demand notices are issued under the U.P. Act, 2007 for the past period. In default, the interim order(s) granted by this court shall automatically stands vacated. In case the State of Uttar Pradesh loses the matters at the time of final hearing, it shall refund to the appellants the amount deposited with interest at the rate which may be fixed by this court. It is also made clear that in case the appellants loses the matters, the Department is at liberty to encash the bank guarantee(s) offered by the appellants and also issue demand notice(s) demanding interest, and penalty on the amount outstanding as arrears of tax. The appellants shall continue to pay the tax at the prevailing rate(s) for the future period as applicable to each one of the assessees. In view of the interim order passed by us, we expect that the Department shall not resort to coercive steps to recover the amounts due to the Department. In SLP (C) Nos. 244/2012 and 246/2012, learned counsel for the petitioners mentioned that orders in these SLPs have already been made on January 10, 2012 and no orders in these SLPs are required. Later, it was mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioners that inadvertently it was mentioned before the court and the orders are required on these petitions as well. Accordingly, orders in SLP (C) Nos. 244/2012 and 246/2012 are made. Rest of the matters: We will permit such, of the assessees who have not filed affidavits pursuant to our order dated January 5, 2012 to file affidavits/additional affidavits, if any, before this court within two days, after serving the copies of the said affidavits/additional affidavits on the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State. If such affidavits are filed, the Registry is directed to list those matters before this court for consideration of the interim prayer on Monday, the January 23, 2012."
(3.) Prior to the interim order, the High Court had also passed an interim order directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee, which they did. Upon dismissal of the writ petition on 23rd of December, 2011, the respondents encashed the bank guarantee on 31st of December, 2011. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, a sum of Rs. 4.46 crores was furnished as bank guarantee, which was encashed.;