BASHESHWAR DAYAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. C. Agarwal, J. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges a demand notice dated 3-11-1980 and order dated 26-5-1981 passed by the respondent No. 2 to whom the petitioner preferred an appeal against the demand notice dated 3-11-1980. It is also prayed that the respondents be restrained from realising any amount in pursuance of demand notice dated 3-11-1980.

(2.) I have heard Sri Vishnu Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. D. Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(3.) THE purchase tax on the purchase of sugarcane is levied in accordance with he provisions of the U. P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act, 1961 and the Rules made thereunder. Section 3 of the Act is the charging section which says that the tax shall be levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed. Under Rule 6 a I factory has to furnish a return of cane owner of a factory has to furnish a return of cane and tax as prescribed by Rule 5 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Rules, 1961. In the return the owner of the factory has to specify the quantity of cane purchased during the preceding month and the amount of tax due under the Act and deposited by him under Rule 4 together with the treasury receipt indicating the deposit. Under Rule 6 (1) the assessing officer has to examine the return and ascertain that the amount of tax has been correctly stated. Sub-rule (2) then says that if the assessing officer finds that the tax has not been correctly stated, he shall, after giving the owner of the factory a reasonable opportunity of being heard, by order, assess and determine the correct amount of the tax and inform the owner of such factory of the amount so determined. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 then obliges the owner of the factory to deposit the tax within a period of one week of the receipt of the information. THEreafter the collecting authority may in terms of Rule 9 serve a notice of demand upon the owner of a factory.