- (1.) This writ petition has been filed for seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to recover/charge any amount in the name of Registration Fee from each truck transporting the Coal, Coke, Bamboo, Timber, Broom and Bamboo mats brought by the petitioner from outside the State of U.P. to the State of U.P. and further for a mandamus directing the respondents to refund the amount, which has been so collected from the petitioner in the name of Registration Fee .
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Akanksha Enterprises v. State of U.P. and others decided on 08.12.2011 , for the purpose that no registration fee is contemplated under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978. He has specifically referred to the following paragraphs: The Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978 thus provide for registration of only marks of timber and foreign pass. There is no requirement for the registration of any dealer, who imports the forest produce in the State of UP. The transit pass is required to be issued under the Rules of 1978 for movement of the forest produce in the State of UP whether imported from outside State of UP, moved inside the State of UP or exported to outside the UP. In NTPC Limited and another v. State of UP and others, Writ Tax No. 327 of 2008 decided on 11.11.2011 the Court considered almost all the aspects of the applicability of the Rules. The question of registration under the Rules for the movement of forest produce within the State of UP. In the present case the petitioners are bringing coal from the collieries of Coal India Limited purchased by E-auction. They also purchase coal from the traders of Jharkhand, Bihar and Assam. There is no provision under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and the Rules of 1978 for registration of any dealer. There is only a provision of registration of marks for issuance of foreign passes. The petitioners are not the importer of coal from outside the India nor exports the coal within the country to outside India.
(3.) At the very outset, we record that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Akanksha Enterprises v. State of U.P. and others was dealing with transportation of coal and therefore any observations made in the said judgment have to be confined to the issue, which had come up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court.;