https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154182 Purchase tax under the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961 turned on the crusher actually opted for and worked, not every crusher covered by a licence. Reading the Act with the U.P. Khandsari Sugar Manufacturers Licensing Order, 1967, the court noted that liability attached to the owner of the unit disclosed in Form XIII, while the Licensing Order dealt only with suspension or cancellation for non-working. Because the assessee declared and worked only one crusher, and the second remained sealed and outside the opted unit, tax could not be imposed on that second crusher. The revenue's reliance on the Full Bench precedent was rejected as factually distinct. en-us Fri, 13 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Aug 2013 18:08:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154182 Purchase tax under the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961 turned on the crusher actually opted for and worked, not every crusher covered by a licence. Reading the Act with the U.P. Khandsari Sugar Manufacturers Licensing Order, 1967, the court noted that liability attached to the owner of the unit disclosed in Form XIII, while the Licensing Order dealt only with suspension or cancellation for non-working. Because the assessee declared and worked only one crusher, and the second remained sealed and outside the opted unit, tax could not be imposed on that second crusher. The revenue's reliance on the Full Bench precedent was rejected as factually distinct. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 13 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154182