The State of Bihar, and ors. Vs. Sati Kant Mishra, and anr.

[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. .....writ petition was taken up for consideration. the order further shows that in spite of permission granted by the court on 4th of july, 2002, no counter affidavit had been filed by the state.3. in those circumstance, the writ court considered the facts pleaded in the writ petition and has allowed the prayer of the writ petitioner that he was also entitled for replacement scale of rs.16400-20,000/- as granted to the directors in other departments of the state of bihar.4. the writ court has noticed the basic fact that director in various departments of the government of bihar were in the pay-scale of rs.5100-6300/- but while revising the pay-scale the director, dairy development was fitted in a lower scale of rs.14300-18300/-. since the petitioner was holding the post of such director, he was aggrieved on being fitted in a lower replacement scale as compared to that allowed to directors of other departments.5. for such apparent discrimination which was not explained by the respondent-state in any manner, the writ court had no option and therefore it allowed the writ petition with a direction to fit the writ petitioner in the pay-scale of rs.16,400-20,000/- w.e.f. 1st january, 1996 and to grant him the benefit of such entitlement within three months.6. the state of bihar and its officials have preferred this appeal to challenge the aforesaid order on the ground that they have acted as per recommendation of the fitment committee according to which the three posts of director in the department of animal husbandry and fisheries department which include the post of the writ petitioner, director, dairy development are to be fitted in the revised scale of rs.14,300-18,300/- only. there is no denial that the directors in other departments were given higher replacement scale of rs.16,400- 20,000/- not a single fact has been whispered in the memorandum of appeal nor any document has been annexed to show as to validity or existence of any reason to discriminate the directors.....