TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (11) TMI 576
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....990 to March 29, 1995). The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent No. 2, the Divisional Level Committee, Kanpur, to grant exemption under section 4-A for five years with effect from the date of the first sale, i.e., (March 30, 1990) and restraining the respondents from realising trade tax from the petitioner for the assessment years 1991-92 to 1994-95. 2.. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner established a new industrial unit for the manufacture of hosiery, vests, underwear and socks. Since it fulfilled all the conditions required for grant of exemption under section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act in accordance with the notification dated December 26, 1985, hence, an eligibility certificate und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... review application, vide annexure 7. The said review application has been rejected by the order dated May 10, 1994 vide annexure 9. A perusal of the order dated May 10, 1994, shows that nothing has been mentioned therein except in para 2 that the matter of evasion of tax subsists. However, no details have been given as to what evasion of tax has been done by the petitioner. 8.. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 9.. A perusal of the letter dated September 25, 1992 (annexure 5 to the writ petition) clearly establishes that even the Convener of the Divisional Level Committee was not aware exactly what misuse had been done by the petitioner since there was nothing on the record to demonstrate in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J., in Gordhandas Bhanji AIR 1952 SC 16 at page 18): 'Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority, cannot be considered in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to who they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself ': Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older". 14.. Hence the various facts mentione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntioned in paragraph 10 of the counteraffidavit have been denied. 18.. So far as the allegation regarding detention of the goods by a Mobile Squad, it is stated in paragraph 9 of the rejoinder-affidavit that the goods were detained by the Sales Tax Officer, Mobile Squad, Fatehpur, and a show cause notice No. 19 dated July 16, 1991 was issued in the name of Shilpa Industries, since bill No. 489 dated July 13, 1991 for a sum of Rs. 19,929 of Shilpa Industries was already there, on which the tax was also deposited by Shilpa Industries. The goods were released on furnishing security by Shilpa Industries and no penalty was ever imposed in pursuance of the said detention or seizure of the goods, which was detained by the S.T.O, Mobile Squad, Fat....