Dishnet Wireless Ltd vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh

5 1 ITEM NO.33+69 COURT NO.9 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).8731/2012 (From the judgement and order dated 23/12/2011 in WT No.227/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD) M/S S.S.COMPONENTS PVT. LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ANR. Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and prayer for interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(C) NO. 9438-9439 of 2012 (With prayer for interim relief and office report) SLP(C) NO. 9496 of 2012 (With prayer for interim relief and office report) SLP(C) NO. 9483 of 2012 (With prayer for interim relief and office report) SLP(C) NO. 9185-9191 of 2012 (With prayer for interim relief and office report) SLP(C) NO. 8683 of 2012 (With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and with prayer for interim relief and office report) SLP(C) NO. 9416 of 2012 (With appln(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and with prayer for interim relief and office report) Date: 26/03/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD For Petitioner(s) Mr. Tanmay Agarwal, Adv. SLP(C) 8731/2012 Mr. Shwetank Sailakdwal, Adv. Mr. Vipin Kumar Jai,Adv. SLP(C)9438-39/2012 Mr. Pankaj Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Vivek Chaudhary, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand, Adv. Mr Pavanshree Agrawal, Adv. 2 SLP(C) 8683/12 Mr. Dhruv Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Praveen Kumar, Adv. Ms. Sunaina Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, Adv. SLP(C) 9416/2012 Mr. P.S.Sudheer, Adv. Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Manoj Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Adv. Mr. Aviral Shukla, Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Notice to the respondents.

Learned counsel appears and accepts notice on behalf of all the respondents in all the matters.

Leave granted.

In these Civil Appeals, the appellants and others are questioning the correctness or otherwise of the common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad in Writ Tax No. 227 of 2009 etc. dated 23.12.2011.

In the Writ Petitions filed, the appellants and others had questioned the constitutional validity of the U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods Into Local Areas Act, 2007 ('U.P.Act, 2007' for short).

We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the prayer made for grant of interim relief and also perused the records.

We are not inclined to grant the blanket stay order as 3 prayed for by the appellants. Accordingly, we pass the following order:

The operation of the impugned judgment and order is stayed subject to the appellants in each case depositing 50% of the accrued tax liability/arrears under the U.P.Act, 2007 and furnish bank guarantee for the balance amount within four weeks from today. It goes without saying, that the aforesaid deposit shall be made after adjusting the amount(s) paid or deposited during the pendency of the Writ Petitions before the High Court. The appellants are directed to keep the bank guarantee(s) alive during the pendency of these appeals. The amount(s) so deposited/paid and the bank guarantee(s) furnished is subject to the result of these appeals.

The appellants shall also deposit 50% of the tax liability/arrears, including interest and penalty, and furnish bank guarantee for the balance amount as and when demand notices are issued under the U.P.Act, 2007 for the past period.

In default, the interim order(s) granted by this Court shall automatically stands vacated.

In case the State of Uttar Pradesh loses the matters at the time of final hearing, it shall refund to the appellants the amount deposited with interest at the rate which may be fixed by this Court.

It is also made clear that in case the appellants loses 4 the matter, the Department is at liberty to encash the bank guarantee(s) offered by the appellants and also issue demand notice(s) demanding interest, and penalty on the amount outstanding as arrears of tax.

The appellants shall continue to pay the tax at the prevailing rate(s) for the future period as applicable to each one of the assessees.

In view of the interim order passed by us, we expect that the Department shall not resort to coercive steps to recover the amounts due to the Department.

The interim order(s) passed by us will apply to only those cases where the appellants have filed the affidavits before this Court pursuant to the orders passed by us on 05.01.2012.

If for any reason, the appellants in these appeals want to seek statutory remedies provided under the Act against the assessment orders, best judgment assessment orders, provisional assessment orders, appeals or revisions before appropriate forum, they are at liberty to do so and if such appeals or revisions are filed, we direct the statutory authorities to consider the same in accordance with law.

We also reserve liberty to the respondent-State of U.P. to verify the veracity of the statement made by the appellants in the affidavits filed insofar as the tax burden being passed on the consumers directly or indirectly. 5

Liberty is granted to the respondents to file appropriate application before this Court for modification of the interim orders granted, if for any reason, the appellants in these cases have passed on the tax burden on the consumers.

COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

(NAVEEN KUMAR) (RENUKA SADANA)