1995 (4) TMI 258

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....plication and further seeking restraint on the assessing authority, respondent No. 3, from making any assessment for the relevant assessment years in question. Earlier petitioner has filed application under section 4-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 for eligibility certificate which was rejected on 15th June, 1990. Thereafter petitioner preferred a review on 6th July, 1990 which also stood rejected by means of the impugned order dated 29th September, 1991. It is this very order which is subject to challenge by the petitioner. The short question for consideration is whether on the findings recorded by the respondent No. 2, petitioner is entitled for grant of exemption under section 4-A of the Act or not. Earlier petitioner's application ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d it manufactures tin containers. Hence petitioner's unit being adjacent to Nimit Industry cannot be sustained. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner's unit is run by the wife while Nimit Industry is by the husband. From the perusal of the counter-affidavit filed by Sri Mahendra Pratap Pandey, Sales Tax Officer, with reference to paragraph 8 the aforesaid facts are admitted. To appreciate the contentions raised it is necessary to reproduce Explanation to section 4-A which has been substituted with effect from 12th October, 1993. "(ii) on or adjacent to the site of an existing factory or workshop manufacturing any other goods, but does not include- (i) any factory or workshop manufacturing the same goods established by a ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r owner in the existing unit, namely, Nimit Industry and from the aforesaid admission of facts also could not be treated to be adjacent to the petitioner's unit; It is also relevant to mention here that the petitioner in this writ petition has stated that it has stopped with effect from 1st March, 1991 and hence petitioner's claim for exemption is only for the period August, 1989 to 1st of March, 1991. In view of the findings recorded above it cannot be held that in view of the aforesaid explanation to section 4-A the petitioner's unit will not be entitled for exemption as the petitioner's unit could not be said to be adjacent to Nimit Industry which manufactures the same goods nor the wife who is running the petitioner's unit has any in....