TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (2) TMI 1101
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he respondents in these matters. The purchase of sugarcane by the sugar factories is regulated under the provisions of U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). In exercise of powers conferred under section 28 of the Act, the State Government has framed rules known as the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). Section 18 of the Act requires the sugar factories to pay a commission known as society commission to the co-operative cane societies a share of which is also transferred to the Cane Development Council. The rate at which the said commission is payable is left to be determined and prescribed by the State Government by the statutory Rules. The share of commission which comes to the co-operative societies is to cover their administrative costs, which include mainly the maintenance of staff deputed for undertaking various co-operatives activities connected with the sale of sugarcane to the sugar factories. 2. In the year 1985, the Government of Uttar Pradesh by amending rule 49 of the Rules raised the society commission to 50 paise per quintal vide noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning proper accounts." (emphasis is mine) 4. The effect of the aforesaid notification was that existing rule 49 was deleted and in its place new rule 49 was substituted. However, the substituted rule remained operative from October 1, 1991 to September 30, 1992. It is not disputed that the appellants herein continued to pay the society commission on the basis of substituted rule 49, i.e., at the rate of 2.69 per cent of the minimum statutory price of sugarcane. After September 30, 1992 the Cane Commissioner of Uttar Pradesh issued a circular to the effect that the society commission after September 30, 1992 shall be charged at the rate of 5 per cent of the minimum statutory price of sugarcane fixed by the Central Government on the premise that since the substituted rule came to be inoperative after September 30, 1992, the old rule 49 has revived. 5. Since the respondents insisted to charge society commission at the rate of 5 per cent of the minimum statutory price of sugarcane fixed by the Central Government, it is alleged that the appellants were compelled to file a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. In the said writ petition, the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e has been deleted or repealed and substituted by a new rule, whether the old rule would revive when the substituted rule ceased to be operative. 9. In B.N. Tewari v. Union of India [1965] 2 SCR 421, the question whether the old rule revives after the substituted rule was struck down came up for consideration before this Court. In the said case, the Central Services Rule of 1952 provided for carry forward rule whereby the unfilled reserved vacancy of a particular year could be carried forward for one year. In the year 1955, the said 1952 rule was substituted by another rule providing that unfilled reserved vacancies of a particular year would be carried forward for two years. Subsequently, the 1955 rule was declared ultra vires. In that context, the question arose whether the 1952 rule had revived after the 1955 rule was struck down. A Constitution Bench of this Court held that old 1952 rule having been repealed and substituted by the 1955 rule, the old 1952 rule would not revive after the 1955 rule was struck down by this Court. 10. In Firm A.T.B. Mehtab Majid & Co. v. State of Madras See [1963] 14 STC 355 (SC). [1963] Suppl. 2 SCR 435, it was held that where an old rule has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate omission to provide what has been contained in the new rule 49 by way of a proviso to old rule 49 shows that the State Government intended to repeal the old rule and substitute it by a new rule 49. 15. It would have been a different case where a subsequent law which modified the earlier law held to be void. In such a case, the earlier law shall be deemed to have never been modified or repealed and, therefore, continued to be in force. Where it is found that the Legislature lacked competence to enact a law, still amends the existing law and subsequently it is found that the Legislature or the authority was denuded with the power to amend the existing law, in such a case the old law would revive and continue. But it is not the case here. It is not disputed that the State Government under section 28 read with section 18 of the Act, has power to frame rule prescribing the society commission. The State Government by substituting new rule 49 never intended to keep alive the old rule. The totality of the circumstances shows that the old rule was deleted and came to be substituted by new rule 49 and, therefore, we are of the view that after new rule 49 ceased to be operative, the ol....