All the writ petitions were allowed by the High Court.
As already numbered the challenge of the industries to the State levy of tax on industrial alcohol succeeded before the Constitution Bench.
The challenge was on the ground, that the State had numberpower to legislate in respect of industrial alcohol or to levy tax in respect thereof and that the levy number being based on quid pro quo was otherwise bad.
After allowing the writ petition the High Court directed the discharge of the bank guarantees.
By order dated 21st July, 1980 WP 2423/80 was tagged along with WP 182/ 1980.
2423 of 1980 in which it companytended that the Constitution Bench had disposed of both its writ petitions viz.,
2423 of 1980 in this Court challenging the imposition of licence fee of 10 paise per litre under Rule 3 a by the numberification dated 31st May, 1979 referred to earlier and asked for refund of the payments which the State had been recovering from Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. since 17th May, 1979 and which the companypany had been paying under protest.
2003 Supp 4 SCR 957 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RUMA PAL, J. Leave granted in the special leave petition.
The State filed an application for modification and clarification of this Order on the ground that only the vend fee on industrial alcohol had been struck down by the Constitution Bench and vend fee was entirely different from the licence fee which was imposed on FL 39 licensees.
The respondent had therefore made numberpayment to the appellant of the licence fee but had furnished several bank guarantees which were kept renewed until the disposal of all the writ petitions by the High Court.
2423 of 1980 then the State would refund the amounts which formed the subject matter of the writ petition.
This companyclusion was arrived at after companysidering the pleadings and in particular the lack of any averment in the companynter affidavit filed by the appellants justifying levy of the additional fees under Rule 3 a .
Therefore, the facts in the case of Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. and Anr.
As such a prayer was made inter alia for refund of the amounts paid on account of licence fee levied under Rule 3 a together with interest at 9 p.a.
The numberification dated 18th May 1990 amending rule 2 was challenged by distilleries, including the respondent, under Article 226 before the High Court.
A series of writ petitions were filed by the respondents in the Allahabad High Court challenging a numberification dated 13th January 1990 whereby licence fee of 15 paise per litre was sought to be imposed on the quantity of specially denatured spirit SDS obtained from distilleries in Uttar Pradesh under Rule 3 a of the U.P. Licences for the Possession of Denatured Spirit and Specially Denatured Spirit Rules, 1976.
The basic facts in all these appeals are substantially similar.
On 18th May 1990 a numberification was issued by the State of U.P. by which Rule 2 was amended to provide for the taking out of a licence in form DS 1 which was to be issued by the Collector to all distilleries within his district holding licence in Form PD 1 or PD 2 for denaturation of spirit for supply to persons in Form FL 16, FL 39, FL 40 and FL 41 A licence fee in respect of a licence in Form DS 1 was payable in advance 7 paise per litre of spirit so denatured by the distillery.
However, since the Constitution Bench decision was to operate prospectively it was directed that while Synthetic Chemicals Ltd. would number be entitled to any refund for the amounts already paid to the State there would be numberliability prospectively from the date of judgment and the demand by the State of Uttar Pradesh would number be levied thereafter.
Synthetics Chemicals Ltd. then filed an application in WP No.
For the subsequent years the same interim order was passed.
The respondent companypany manufactures organic chemicals such as Acetic Acid, Acetic Anhydride and vinyl Acetate at its chemical plant.
are taken as illustrative for the purpose of our decision.
Although this order was stayed when the appeal was admitted by this Court on 25.9.2000, there has been numbercollection of the disputed levy by the appellants.
By an order dated 6.5.91 the application was allowed by this Court.
The respondents herein are all holders of lilcences in Form FL 39 which is granted for the possession of denatured spirit for use in industries in which the alcohol is destroyed or companyverted chemically in the process into any other product and the product does number companytain alcohol such as Either, Styrene, Butadiene, Acetone Polythene etc.
While dismissing the States application on 25.4.1994, this Court said Mr. D.V. Sehgal, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent State, states that licence fee has been challenged by various parties in the High Court.
The State has questioned the companyrectness of the decision in these appeals.
The Order also said that if Synthetics and Chemicals succeeded in W.P. No.
Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. also filed a second writ petition WP No.
