B.S.Chauhan - (1.) THE applicant established a new unit for manufacturing of Special Smokeless Fuel and Coal Tar. THE applicant made an application under Section 4A of the Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter called as the Act) for grant of the eligibility certificate in its favour, meaning thereby the exemption fully or partly of the sales tax/trade tax on the goods received, brought or imported from outside State for consumption as raw material, e.g., raw coal, used for manufacturing the said Special Smokeless Fuel and Coal Tar. A circular/notification issued by the Commissioner, Sales Tax under Section 8C (3A) of the Act required to deposit the cash security for issuance of Forms 31 in cases where coal was brought from outside the State, as was necessary to protect the interest of revenue under certain circumstances.
(2.) DURING the pendency of the said application, applicant filed a Writ Petition No. 2796 (MB) of 1993 before the Lucknow Bench of this court and in the said writ petition, this court on 29.6.1993 passed the following interim order: "Until disposal of the exemption application of the petitioner, the respondents are directed not to insist on cash security for the issuance of Form No. 31 at the Check Post." At this stage, it may be relevant to point out that the opposite party was not impleaded as respondent in the said writ petition as at the relevant time, the Sales Tax Officer had been the assessing authority as per turn-over shown by the applicant. The order was complied with. Subsequently, as the turn-over had gone over and above the sum of Rs. 25 lacs, the opposite party became the assessing authority with effect from 1.2.1995. Petitioner filed the instant contempt petition on 6th April, 1995 before this court, praying to punish the opposite party for wilful defiance of the order of this court dated 29.6.1993. This court vide its order dated 7th April, 1995 called upon the opposite party to explain as to why he should not be prosecuted and punished for the alleged flouting of the order dated 29.6.1993 passed in Writ Petition No. 2796 of 1993. The opposite party filed the counter-affidavit and the applicant filed the rejoinder affidavit. I have heard Dr. R. G. Padia, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Additional Advocate General of U. P. for the opposite party. The applicant has not mentioned anywhere in the petition that the opposite party had insisted for furnishing the cash security to issue Form No. 31 in contravention of the order passed by this court on 29.6.1993. The relevant allegations in this regard are only as under: "la The petitioner is depositing earlier security in the Check Post for importing the coal from outside State. The photo copy of the receipt dated 30.3.1995 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure 4 to the application................. 12. That in view of the aforesaid facts the opposite party had deliberately disobeyed the mandatory order of this Hon'ble Court..........."
(3.) THUS, it is clear that the contention/averments/submissions made in the contempt petition fell short for making out any case against the opposite party, to initiate the proceedings under provisions of the Act and when confronted with the said trivialities of the allegations made in the petition, learned counsel for the applicant tried to satisfy the court by making the reference to the annexures filed along with the petition, wherein the reference has been made to a letter written by the applicant to the opposite party on 20.2.1995 (Annexure 3) which is quoted below: "With reference to your letter No. KCDPL/17/90/94-94. dated 8.2.95. which has been submitted in your office for taking action against above subject-matter, but in continuation of the said letter you told orally not in writing that Form 31 will be issued after depositing a Trade Tax/Sales Tax. While we have already availed an order by the Hon'ble High Court, Lucknow Bench dated 29.6.93 for issuance of Form 31 without depositing any cash security which is enclosed for your kind perusal." Applicant has filed a receipt depositing an amount of Rs. 1,120 at Check Post (Annexure 4 to the contempt petition). It is admitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the opposite party does not sit on the Check Post. So nothing can be attributed towards the opposite parry, so far as Annexure 4, i.e. the receipt is concerned. It is apparent from the record of the case that the applicant had not paid the admitted tax since November, 1994 and there has been persistent demand for making the payment of arrears of the sales tax/trade tax due from the applicant. Even in the letter dated 20.2.95, there is no allegation that the opposite party had insisted for furnishing the cash security for issuing the Form No. 31. The said letter itself makes it clear that the opposite party was not issuing the Form No. 31 as the applicant was not depositing the admitted amount of sales tax/trade tax and thus it cannot be said that the opposite party has even made an attempt to defy the order passed by this court on 29.6.93.;