Ex-post facto approval for storage outside factory premises can satisfy statutory approval requirements and defeat penalty.

Ex-post facto approval for storing sugar in a godown outside factory premises was treated as sufficient compliance with the proviso to Section 3-A(1) of the U.P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act, 1961. The Court read "approval" to include confirmation, ratification and sanction, and distinguished it from "permission", noting that a prior-approval requirement must be stated clearly in the statute. Because tax had been paid before removal of the sugar bags and the authority later granted approval after finding no tax evasion, the statutory condition was satisfied and the penalty under Section 3-A(5) was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether ex-post facto approval granted for storing sugar in a godown outside the factory premises amounted to compliance with the proviso to Section 3-A(1) of the U.P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act, 1961, so as to negate the levy of penalty under Section 3-A(5).

Analysis: The statutory scheme permitted storage outside the factory premises with approval, and the proviso spoke only of approval, not prior approval. The Court treated the meaning of approval as including confirmation, ratification, and sanction, and held that approval can validly be granted after the act. It distinguished approval from permission, noting that where the legislature intends a prior approval requirement, that requirement is expressed in clear terms. Since the tax had been paid before removal of the sugar bags and the Assessing Authority itself had granted ex-post facto approval after verifying that there was no tax evasion, the requirement of the proviso stood satisfied.

Conclusion: Ex-post facto approval was sufficient compliance with the proviso to Section 3-A(1), and the penalty under Section 3-A(5) could not be sustained.

---