Allowed

m/s shubhi coal suppliers and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 6 Ors.

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2018WTAX/669/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of UP allowed a writ petition challenging the liability to pay registration fees for movement of coal and coke under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Following established precedent, the Court held such fees beyond respondent authority and directed refund.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; no registration required for coal movement within UP; any registration fee charged to be returned.

m/s shubhi coal suppliers and 2 Ors. Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 669 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Shubhi Coal Suppliers And 2 Ors Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Brahm Deo Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

The petitioners have challenged, in these proceedings, the action of the respondents in requiring the payment of registration fees allegedly under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

¶6

The petitioners claim to be engaged in the business of purchase and sale of coal and coke. The contention of the petitioners is that they are not liable to pay the registration fees.

¶7

The issue before the Court is not res integra but is governed by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Akansha Enterprises Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.;¹

¶8

The Division Bench held as follows:-

¶9

"On the aforesaid facts and circumstances the insistence for registration and for charging the registration fees is beyond the authority conferred upon the respondents under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Rules of 1978."

¶10

The operative directions that were issued by the Division Bench were in the following terms:-

¶11

"Both the writ petitions are allowed to the extent that the petitioners will not be required to obtain registration for movement of coal within the State of UP. If any registration fee is charged from the petitioners, the same shall be returned to them. They will, however, continue to obtain transit passes and pay transit fee on the transportation /movement of coal, held to be forest produce in NTPC Ltd. (supra), in accordance with the U.P. Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978."

¶12

These directions were followed by an another Division Bench of this Court on 18 December 2012 in M/S. Balaji Coal Supplier Vs. State of U.P. & Ors (WRIT TAX No. - 1341 of 2012).

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel could not point out any distinguishing feature. In the circumstances and respectfully following the earlier judgment, we allow the writ petition in the same terms and directions as mentioned in the judgment and order dated 8th December, 2011 of the Division Bench in M/s Akanksha Enterprises (supra).

¶14

In regard to the prayer for refund, we permit the petitioners to submit an

¶15

1 VSTI 2012 (Vol.13) B-256

¶16

application to the Competent Authority and, if such an application is filed, a decision thereon shall be taken in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application.

¶17

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Order Date :- 20.4.2018 Arvind

¶18

(Dilip Gupta, J.)

¶19

(Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

m/s shubhi coal suppliers and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

m/s shubhi coal suppliers and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Majumdar Vs Cantonment Board Office and 8 Others

Pushpendra Kumar AND13 Others Vs Staff Selection Commission and 2 Others

M/S S.K. Contracts Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

chandra wati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Bhure Lal Vs U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and 4 Others

U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation Ltd. Vs Shubham Saxena and Another