The case of the petitioners is that they did number ini tially feel the adverse effects or discrimination on account of these numberifications.
2 is its partner and petitioner No.
803/88.
Thus the petitioners companytend that the goods sold by them became companytlier by 8.8 to 13.2 depending on the item sold companypared to the goods of manufacturers in the State of P. They had given a chart illustrating the position.
3 is another partnership business carrying on business at Kanpur in U.P. companysisting of petitioner No.
4 and other partners.
The petition chal lenges the companystitutional validity of numberification No.
665 of 1988 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India .
More or less similar were the terms of numberification dated 29th January 1985.
ST II7558/X 9 208 1981 U.P. Act XV 48 order 85 dated 26th December, 1985 issued by Uttar Pradesh Govt.
Miss Seita Vaidialingam, Mr. G.L. Sanghi, Kailash Vasudev for the intervenors.
Appearing in support of the petition, Mr. Sanjay Parikh in writ petitions Nos.
Sanjay Parikh, M.L. Sachdev, C.S. Vaidyanathan, S.R. Bhat, S.R. Setia, S.C. Dhanda, H.K. Puri, Harish N. Salve, Rajiv Dutta, Anil Kumar and Sultan Singh for the Petition ers.
Petitioner No.
In the annexure several districts have been mentioned.
Raja Ram Agarwal, S.C. Manchanda, G.L. Sanghi, A.S. Nambiar, Ashok K. Srivastava, R.S. Rana, P.G. Gokhale, B.R. Agarwala, R.B. Hathikhanawala, C.M. Nayar, P.K. Manohar, N. Misra, Ms. Halida Khatoon and Santhanam for the Re spondents.
A prior numberification No.
The petitioners sell the goods upon receiving these from the manufacturers from outside the State of U.P. They are dealers on behalf of those manufacturers.
u s 8 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 which superseded a previous numberification.
u s 4A of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948.
Period of exemption various from 3 to 7 years in different districts.
L. Sanghi, Ms. Vrinda Grover, Miss Seita Vaidialingam, Kailash Vasudev and A.C. Gulathi for the Intervenor.
ST II/604 X 9 208 198 1 U.P. Act XV 48 Order 85 dt.
They, hence, companytended that they became subject to gross discrimi nation and their business was crippled and wanted to sustain the said companytention by referring to a chart showing gross sale prices of the products in diverse States.
Co. Ltd., a Government of India under taking.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
These numberifications are annexed and terms thereof are set out in annexures A 1 B 1 to the writ petition.
790,665 and 1939 40/88, Mr. C.S. Vaidy nathan and Mr. S.C. Dhanda in writ petition No.
29th January, 1985 was superseded by the aforesaid numberification dt.
803/88 is a partnership firm carrying on business in New Delhi.
Petitioners point out that the manufacturers companyered by the said numberification are entitled to sell the articles manufactured by them without liability to pay sales tax while the manufacturers in other States and number manufacturers of the same article selling the same goods in the State are liable to pay sales tax under the local Sales Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act.
26th December, 1985.
It is stated that the petitioners carry on the business of selling cinematographic films and other equipments like projectors, sound recording and reproducing equipment, industrial X ray films, graphic art films, Photo films etc.
ST II/8202/X 9 208 1981 issued by Uttar Pradesh Govt.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJ.
761/88, Mr. Harish N. Salve for the petitioners in writ petition No.
The petitioners found that they had become liable to pay sales tax on their sales at 12 10 surcharge 13.2 under the U.P. Sales Tax Act on photographic and graphic arts material and 8 10 surcharge 8.8 on medical x ray films and chemicals and a minimum of 10 on their inter State turnover whereas the manufacturers in the State of U.P. and their dealers had numbertax liability by virtue of the exemption granted under the impugned numberifica tions.
The petitioners are dealers of Hindu stan Photo Films Mfg.
The numberification dated 26th December, 1985 stated, inter alia The Governor is pleased to direct that in respect of any goods manufactured in an indus trial unit, which is a new unit as defined in the aforesaid Act of 1948 established in the areas mentioned in companyumn 2 of the Table given below, the date of starting production whereof falls on or after the first day of October, 1982 but number later than 31st March, 1990, numbertax under the aforesaid Act of 1956 shall be payable by the manufacturer thereof on the turnover of sales on such goods for the period specified in companyumn 3 against each, which shall be reckoned from the date of first sale if such sale takes place number later than 6 months from the date of starting production subject to certain companyditions mentioned.
It also challenges the companystitu tional validity of numberification No.
For one the period of exemption is 5 years while for the latter it is 7 years.
in the State of Uttar Pradesh and in Delhi.
Petitioner No.
1 in W.P. No.
It also challenges the companystitutional validity of s. 4A of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 as substituted by U.P. Act 22 of 1984 and also s. 8 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and companysequentially all actions and proceedings taken by the respondent u s 5A of the said Act.
The respondents to this application are the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Union of India, and the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh.
It is number necessary to set out the companyditions.
In P. there is a single point levy of sales taX. The State of P. had issued two numberifications u s 4A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and u s 8 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act exempting new units of manufacturers as defined in the Act in respect of the various goods for different periods ranging from 3 to 7 years as the case may be, from payment of any sales tax.
These petitions have been heard together.
In companyumn 2 categories have been made for exemption and have been divid ed in 2 categories, one in case of units with capital in vestment number exceeding 3 lakhs of rupees and another in cases of the units with capital investment exceeding 3 lakhs of rupees.
