Swarup Rolling Mills Ltd. and ors v. State of U.P. and
Case Details
Petitioner :- M/S Kailash Creations Thru.Partner Smt.Ritu Jain And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Energy Lko And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd.Altaf Mansoor,Pallavi Singh,Tanay Chaudhary,Yogesh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Neerav Chitravanshi Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Siddharth Dhaon, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 5,6 and 7. The petitioners are permitted to implead the Director, Electrical Safety, Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow as an opposite party during course of the day. The State Counsel already represents the said Officer. An extra copy of the writ petition will be provided to Shri Siddharth Dhaon, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State for his records. After hearing the matter at some length what comes out is that in similar matter bearing Writ Petition No. 12895 (M/B) of 2021 we have passed some orders disposing of the said writ petition on 25.06.2021, which read as under:- "Heard. The petitioner's counsel seeks the benefit of a judgement dated 29.5.2019 passed by a co-ordinate bench of this court in Writ-C No. 18918 of 2019, (Swarup Rolling Mills Ltd. and ors. vs State of U.P. and 2 ors.) as according to her the subject matter in issue which is involved in this writ petition has already been settled by the said judgement. On being confronted, learned counsel for the opposite parties Shri Manish Jauhari and Shri Neerav Chitranshi, Advocates fairly submitted that the matter is in fact covered by the said judgement and it can be disposed of in terms thereof. The judgement dated 29-5-2019 referred hereinabove reads as under: "Heard Sri Mayank Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel for respondents nos. 1 and 3 and Sri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. Under the U.P. Industrial and Service Sector Investment Policy, 2004 a new industry set up after the enforcement of the said policy was entitled to exemption of duty or electricity for a period of 10 years. The notification with regard to exemption was issued by the State Government on 21.1.2010. A dispute arose as to the date from which the exemption would be granted ie., either from the date of the commencement of the policy or from the issuance of the notification. The matter travelled upto the Supreme Court and it was decided that the exemption from the electricity duty would be admissible to all eligible industries set-up after the enforcement of the above policy for a period of 10 years from the date of the notification ie. 21.1.2010 till 21.1.2020. The petitioner no. 1 is an industry which was set-up after the enforcement of the above policy and has been granted the eligibility certificate from the exemption of electricity duty. However, pending the above duty the petitioner continued to pay the electricity duty for the period 21.1.2010 to 5.2.2018, though he is getting the exemption thereafter. The petitioner therefore wants that the electricity duty paid by him during the above period from 21.1.2010 till 5.1.2018 be refunded to him. The further submission is that in respect of similar matters respondent no. 3 is ordinarily directing for refund of duties but in the case of the petitioner he is sitting tight over the matter. The petitioner has applied for refund of the electricity duty as aforesaid vide application dated 14.5.2018 but till date no order has been passed on it. The amount deposited by the petitioner as electricity duty is a huge amount deposited and non refund of the same is causing great financial hardship to the petitioner affecting his business. We fail to understand the attitude of respondent no. 3 in not dealing the above application of the petitioner when the matter had already been settled by the Supreme Court and it has been held that all such industries which have been established after the enforcement of the policy are eligible to exemption from the date of the notification dated 21.1.2010 for a period of 10 years thereafter, meaning thereby that in case the petitioner has paid any duty during the said period, he is entitled to refund of the same. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition with the direction to respondent no. 3 to consider the matter of refund of the electricity duty paid by the petitioner for the above period in accordance with law most expeditiously within a period one month from the date a copy of this order is produced before him. In the event of any delay in consideration of the matter, respondent no. 3 shall be held personally liable for the same and it will be open for the petitioner to move application in this petition itself for necessary further action. The writ petition is disposed of." In view of the above, this writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement dated 29.05.2019 in the same terms, meaning thereby the petitioner shall be entitled to the observations/directions contained therein and the opposite parties shall also be obliged to comply with the same accordingly on the same terms, i.e. the opposite party no. 2 herein shall consider the matter relating to the electricity dues to be paid by the petitioner for the period in question, in accordance with law, within a period of 2 months from the date an copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the High Court is produced before him and shall take a decision thereon which shall be communicated to the petitioner. Based on such decision consequences shall follow accordingly as per Law. With these observations/directions this writ petition is disposed of." The learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that this writ petition be also disposed of on the same terms. We, accordingly, dispose of this writ petition on the same terms, meaning thereby, the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of observations/directions contained therein with a corresponding obligation upon the opposite parties. . Order Date :- 9.7.2025 R.K.P. (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Petitioner :- M/S Kailash Creations Thru.Partner Smt.Ritu Jain And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Energy Lko And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd.Altaf Mansoor,Pallavi Singh,Tanay Chaudhary,Yogesh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Neerav Chitravanshi Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Siddharth Dhaon, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 5,6 and 7. The petitioners are permitted to implead the Director, Electrical Safety, Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow as an opposite party during course of the day. The State Counsel already represents the said Officer. An extra copy of the writ petition will be provided to Shri Siddharth Dhaon, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State for his records. After hearing the matter at some length what comes out is that in similar matter bearing Writ Petition No. 12895 (M/B) of 2021 we have passed some orders disposing of the said writ petition on 25.06.2021, which read as under:- "Heard. The petitioner's counsel seeks the benefit of a judgement dated 29.5.2019 passed by a co-ordinate bench of this court in Writ-C No. 18918 of 2019, (Swarup Rolling Mills Ltd. and ors. vs State of U.P. and 2 ors.) as according to her the subject matter in issue which is involved in this writ petition has already been settled by the said judgement. On being confronted, learned counsel for the opposite parties Shri Manish Jauhari and Shri Neerav Chitranshi, Advocates fairly submitted that the matter is in fact covered by the said judgement and it can be disposed of in terms thereof. The judgement dated 29-5-2019 referred hereinabove reads as under: "Heard Sri Mayank Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel for respondents nos. 1 and 3 and Sri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. Under the U.P. Industrial and Service Sector Investment Policy, 2004 a new industry set up after the enforcement of the said policy was entitled to exemption of duty or electricity for a period of 10 years. The notification with regard to exemption was issued by the State Government on 21.1.2010. A dispute arose as to the date from which the exemption would be granted ie., either from the date of the commencement of the policy or from the issuance of the notification. The matter travelled upto the Supreme Court and it was decided that the exemption from the electricity duty would be admissible to all eligible industries set-up after the enforcement of the above policy for a period of 10 years from the date of the notification ie. 21.1.2010 till 21.1.2020. The petitioner no. 1 is an industry which was set-up after the enforcement of the above policy and has been granted the eligibility certificate from the exemption of electricity duty. However, pending the above duty the petitioner continued to pay the electricity duty for the period 21.1.2010 to 5.2.2018, though he is getting the exemption thereafter. The petitioner therefore wants that the electricity duty paid by him during the above period from 21.1.2010 till 5.1.2018 be refunded to him. The further submission is that in respect of similar matters respondent no. 3 is ordinarily directing for refund of duties but in the case of the petitioner he is sitting tight over the matter. The petitioner has applied for refund of the electricity duty as aforesaid vide application dated 14.5.2018 but till date no order has been passed on it. The amount deposited by the petitioner as electricity duty is a huge amount deposited and non refund of the same is causing great financial hardship to the petitioner affecting his business. We fail to understand the attitude of respondent no. 3 in not dealing the above application of the petitioner when the matter had already been settled by the Supreme Court and it has been held that all such industries which have been established after the enforcement of the policy are eligible to exemption from the date of the notification dated 21.1.2010 for a period of 10 years thereafter, meaning thereby that in case the petitioner has paid any duty during the said period, he is entitled to refund of the same. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition with the direction to respondent no. 3 to consider the matter of refund of the electricity duty paid by the petitioner for the above period in accordance with law most expeditiously within a period one month from the date a copy of this order is produced before him. In the event of any delay in consideration of the matter, respondent no. 3 shall be held personally liable for the same and it will be open for the petitioner to move application in this petition itself for necessary further action. The writ petition is disposed of." In view of the above, this writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement dated 29.05.2019 in the same terms, meaning thereby the petitioner shall be entitled to the observations/directions contained therein and the opposite parties shall also be obliged to comply with the same accordingly on the same terms, i.e. the opposite party no. 2 herein shall consider the matter relating to the electricity dues to be paid by the petitioner for the period in question, in accordance with law, within a period of 2 months from the date an copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the High Court is produced before him and shall take a decision thereon which shall be communicated to the petitioner. Based on such decision consequences shall follow accordingly as per Law. With these observations/directions this writ petition is disposed of." The learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that this writ petition be also disposed of on the same terms. We, accordingly, dispose of this writ petition on the same terms, meaning thereby, the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of observations/directions contained therein with a corresponding obligation upon the opposite parties. . Order Date :- 9.7.2025 R.K.P. (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench