TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 1063X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hin the State of U.P. and composition of the same is N.P.K. 23:23:0 (the letters N.P.K. standing for nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium) respectively. 3.. A notification dated November 2, 1994, annexure No. 4 to the writ petition was issued by the State Government under section 4(a) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, exempting potassic and phosphatic fertilisers till March 31, 1995. However, subsequently a notification dated April 10, 1995, vide annexure 5 to the writ petition, was issued superseding the earlier notification dated November 2, 1994 and stating that only certain categories of fertilisers (mentioned therein) will be exempted and not all kinds of fertilisers. This was followed by another notification dated May 15, 1995 specify ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .P.Ks. vide annexure 6 to the writ petition. 6.. The first grievance of the learned counsel of the petitioner is that this notification dated April 10, 1995 could not have been issued with retrospective effect. In view of the decision of this Court rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1152 of 1995 (Ganesh International v. Assistant Commissioner [2001] 124 STC 600) decided on July 6, 2000 this point has to be decided in favour of the petitioner. Hence, we hold that notification dated April 10, 1995 will only apply prospectively and not retrospectively. 7.. Shri Agrawal's second submission is that the notification dated May 15, 1995, is discriminatory. The notification dated May 15, 1995, vide annexure 6 to the writ petition, was i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 65 of STC) wherein it has been held that the State enjoys the widest latitude where measures of economic and fiscal regulation are concerned. 11.. In our opinion, the decision of the Supreme Court in Arya Vaidya Pharmacy v. State of Tamil Nadu [1989] 73 STC 346; (1989) 2 SCC 285 squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In that decision it was held by the Supreme Court that while it is open to the Legislature or State Government to select different rates of tax for different categories, where the commodities belong to the same class or category there must be a rational basis for discriminating between one commodity and another for the purpose of imposing tax (vide para 6) (page 350 in STC). We therefore, hold that merely because ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
