Revised closure intimation under purchase tax rules was valid, limiting liability to the later notified closure date.

Rule 13-A of the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Rules was construed harmoniously with section 3 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961 to permit a fresh intimation changing the date of closure of a khandsari unit. The court held that "specified date" includes not only the first intimated closure date but also a later revised date validly notified under the rule. A narrow reading limited to the original date was rejected as inconsistent with the scheme of the rule and productive of absurd results. The revised closure intimation was therefore valid, and no additional purchase tax demand could be raised for the whole month on the contrary assumption.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under rule 13-A of the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Rules, a later intimation changing the date of closure of a khandsari unit is a valid intimation so as to limit purchase tax liability up to the revised closure date, or whether tax remains payable for the whole month because the revised intimation was not given a week before the first notified closure date.

Analysis: The charging mechanism under section 3 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961 operates through the option exercised by the unit owner, and rule 13-A prescribes the manner of intimation of commencement and closure of the unit. The rule contemplates intimation of the date of closure, and also permits the date to be altered by fresh intimation under the provisos. Reading the rule as a whole, and construing the proviso harmoniously with the main provision, the expression "specified date" was held to include not only the first date initially intimated but also any subsequent revised date intimated in accordance with the rule. A construction confining the expression to the first date alone was rejected because it would defeat the purpose of the rule and lead to unreasonable and absurd results. The court also applied the principle that a statute should be interpreted so as to make it workable and effective.

Conclusion: The revised closure intimation was held to be valid, and no additional purchase tax demand could be raised for the whole month of May 1982 on the footing adopted by the authority.

---