- (1.) HEARD Sri V. K. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Vinay Malviya, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh, representing the respondents.
(2.) SRI Vinay Malviya, learned Stand ing Counsel, very fairly, concedes that the controversy raised in this petition is squarely covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in M/s. Mohan Lal Har Govind Das and another v. State of U. P. , Lucknow and others, reported in 1986 Alld. Law Journal at page 585 and in view of the said judgment the writ peti tion is to be allowed and relief prayed for by the petitioners maybe granted. Thus, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are restrained from realizing tax under sub-section (3) of Section'5 of the Uttar Pradesh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, (19 of 1972), (as amended by Act No. 5 of 1980) and refund the amount of tax realized from the petitioner under the said provision. Petition allowed. .;