Saryug Sharma, and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar, and ors.

[aftab alam ; r.m. lodha, jj.] - narcotics drugs & psychotropic substance act, 1985 - sections 8 - prohibition of certain operations -- the suspected narcotic recovered from the appellant was seized under seizure memo, exhibit p.22. the trial court by judgment and order dated 9.11.2005 passed in special case no.4/2005 held all the three accused, including the appellant guilty of offences punishable under sections 8/21(b) of the ndps act and sentenced them as noted above. against the judgment of the trial court, the appellant preferred criminal appeal no.2511/2005 before the high court. the high court dismissed both the appeals by judgment and order dated april 17, 2008. the appellant alone has come in appeal against the judgment of the high court. the present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 10.12.2007 passed by the learned single judge of the high court of allahabad (lucknow bench) whereby the learned single judge has dismissed the tax revision filed by the appellant under section 11 of the u. p. trade tax act (hereinafter referred to as "the act") impugning the judgment dated 14.8.2007 passed by the trade tax tribunal, lucknow rejecting the second appeal of the appellant/assessee. the interest charge on the tax could not have been charged under section 8(1) as the case falls under section 8(1b). as in the present case the tax becomes admittedly payable once it has been held that the tax is payable under the act, the interest would be payable in terms of subsection (1) of section 8 of the act and not in terms of subsection (1b) of section 8 of the act. this court in the case of commissioner of sales tax v. qureshi crucible centre, 1993 supp (3) scc 495 has held that where a dealer fails to pay tax at the correct rate because he claimed not to know the revision in the rate, the dealer remains liable to pay interest at a higher rate, penal rate under section 8 (1) from the date when the tax became due and payable. .....goes on to state that another had filed objections. 5. the counter affidavit does not state at any stage that it was an emergency acquisition under the land acquisition act obviating the need for inviting objections under section 5 of the land acquisition act. the counter affidavit is obviously cryptic and not of much help.6. on record is the order dated 8.1.1998 noticing the stand of the petitioners that perhaps the land has been denitrified when subsequently the matter got adjourned on the controversies with regard to the publication of the notifications in the district gazette and state gazette. today counsel for the petitioners makes a submission on instruction that the petitioners are still in possession of their lands. the land proceedings were never concluded. no final award was passed and compensation paid. in fact, some of them have also sold their lands subject to acquisition proceeding to the third persons. perhaps that may be the reason of the disinterest of the state to appear in the present matter.7. this writ application is disposed in terms of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. if the land acquisition proceedings have not been concluded and the petitioners are wrongly in possession or sold their lands contrary thereto, we make no observation with regard to the same, except to record that the state shall then beat liberty to proceed and act in accordance with law.