STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.versusM/S. VAM ORGANIC CHEMICALS LIMITED

                      (2010] 4 S.C.R. 1


           STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.                           A
                               v.
        MIS. VAM ORGANIC CHEMICALS LIMITED
              (Civil Appeal No. 1929 of 2004)

                    FEBRUARY 26, 2010
                                                                   B
          [S.H. KAPADIA AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.]

     U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948:

       ss. 4-8(2) and (4)(ii) proviso - Amendment of               c
 Recognition Certificate - Effective date - Writ petitions
 challenging show-cause notices issued to assessees for
 deletion of high speed diesel oil (HSD) from Recognition
 Certificates, allowed by High Court - HELD: High Court,
 without examining the nature of the power of Assessing            D
Authority u/s 4-B(4)(ii), intervened at the show cause notice
 stage -Assessing Authority is vested with discretionary power
 to amend Recognition Certificate for which it has to give the
 assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard - It is for
 this reason that the show cause notice was issued - However,
 the stand of Revenue that it seeks to delete HSD on the           E
ground of mistake, is not tenable - 'Rectification' is different
from 'amendment' - The word 'rectification' does not find place
in the proviso - When a Recognition Certificate is issued to
a dealer, he is given the benefit of concessional rate which
cannot be withdrawn retrospectively - Matters remitted to          F
Assessing Authority to treat the show cause notices as issued
for purpose of amending the Recognition Certificate and
decide the same in accordance with the procedure laid down
in s.4-B(4)(ii) - Assessing Authority would also decide de
novo the cases in which it has passed adjudication orders, and     G
if an order amending Recognition Certificate is issued, the
same will operate only from the date of issuance of show
cause notice - Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - s. 7.

                               1                                   H
     2       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A     The respondents, manufacturers of notified
  chemicals, were given central registration u/s 7 of the
  Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and also Recognition
  Certificates u/s 4-B of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act,
  1948 for purchase of high speed diesel oil (HSD) at
B concessional rates. However, pursuant to the circular
  dated 20.6.2000 issued by the Additional Commissioner,
  Trade Tax, Meerut, U.P., notices were issued to the
  respondents for deletion of HSD from their Recognition
  Certificates. The writ petitions of the respondents
c challenging the show cause notices were allowed by the
  High Court.

         In the instant appeals filed by the Revenue, the
     question for determination by the Court was: Whether the
     Department was right in issuing notices calling upon the
·o                                                .
     Companies to show-cause as to why HSD should not be
     deleted as an item from their respective Recognition
     Certificates issued u/s 4-8(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Trade
     Tax Act, 1948?

E        Disposing of the appeals, the Court

       HELD: 1.1. The High Court, in the ~nstant case, has
  not examined the nature of the power exercised by the
  Assessing Authority u/s 4-B(4)(ii) of the Uttar Pradesh
  Trade Tax Act, 1948, and intervened at the show-cause
F notice stage. Power to grant exemption from payment of
  duty or to pay concessional duty is expressly conferred
  on the Assessing Authority. It is a case of conditional
  exemption. Under s.4-B(4)(ii) of 1948 Act, the Assessing
  Authority is vested with discretionary power to amend a
G Recognition Certificate granted under sub-section (2) of
  s. 4-B of 1948 Act either on its own motion or on the
  application of the dealer, for any sufficient reason. This
  pre-condition of "sufficiency of reasons" requires a
  show- cause notice to be given to the dealer in whose
H favour a Recognition Certificate exists, calling upon him
    STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. VAM                   3
         ORGANIC CHEMICALS LIMITED
to show-cause as to why an item should not be deleted A
in a given case. Further, under the proviso to s.4-8(4)(ii)
of 1948 Act, the words used are "no recognition
certificate shall be cancelled or amended by Assessing
Authority of its own motion except after reasonable
opportunity of being heard". Therefore, each case needs B
to be examined by the Assessing Authority if it seeks to
exercise its authority to delete an item from a Recognition
Certificate. Same is the position if the Assessing Authority
seeks to cancel a Recognition Certificate for the reasons
indicated in the said sub-section. Not only that, while c
amending or cancelling a Recognition Certificate, the
Assessing Authority is also required to give reasons for
amending or cancelling the existing Recognition
Certificate or for deleting an item therefrom. [Para 12-15]
(11-A-B; 12-C-D, G-H; 13-A-C]                        .
                                                                D
     1.2. It is important to note that the word "rectification"
does not find place in the proviso to s.4-8(4)(ii).
Conceptually, the word "rectification" is different from the
word "amendment". This point is relevant because, in the
instant case, the stand of the Department is that HSD is E
inserted in the Recognition Certificate by mistake and it
seeks to delete that item on the ground of mistake. That
would not be possible. When a Recognition Certificate is
issued, a benefit of concessional rate of tax is given to
the dealer. He arranges his business affairs on those F
lines. Therefore, that benefit cannot be withdrawn
retrospectively. Such benefit can be withdrawn, at the
highest, from the date of the show-cause notice when the
Assessing Authority proposes to delete an item from the
Recognition Certificate. Such a show-cause notice has G
been given in each case. Accordingly, such show-cause
notice is for amending the Recognition Certificate. (Para
15] (13-C-F]

   1.3. All these cases are remitted to the Assessing
Authority with a direction to treat the show-cause             H
    4       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A notice(s) issued for the purposes of amending the
  existing Recognition Certificate(s). Each assessee will be
  given a hearing, and the amendment of Recognition
  Certificate will be decided on merits in accordance with
  the procedure laid down in s.4-8(4)(ii) of 1948 Act,
B uninfluenced by the decision of the High-Power
  Committee dated 12th June, 2000 or the Circulars issued
  by the Additional Commissioner on 20th June, 2000 or
  the observations made by the High Court in the impugned
  judgements. [Para 16] [13-G-H; 14-A-B]
c      1.4. In some of the cases, pursuant to the show-
  cause notice(s), the Assessing Authority has passed
  adjudication orders in terms of the Circulars issued by
  the Commissioner. The Assessing Officer would decide
  the said cases de novo on the basis of the show-cause
D notices and also uninfluenced by the observations made
  in the orders of adjudication earlier. In each case, the
  Assessing Officer will give a reasoned order. However, if
  an order amending the Recognition Certificate is issued
  by the Assessing Authority, the same will operate only
E from the date of issuance of show-cause notice. [Para 17]
  [14-C-F]

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1929
    of 2004.
F       From the Judgment & Order dated 25.3.2003 of the High
    Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No. 628 of 2000.

                               WITH

G C.A. Nos.1930, 1931-1932, 1933 and 2810-2938 of 2004,
  4298 and 4299 of 2009 and 2056 of 2010.

        Sunil Gupta, S.K. Dwivedi, AAG, Aarohi Bhalla, Vandana
    Mishra, Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, Kamlendra Mishra, Gunnam
    Venkateswara Rao for the Appellants.
H
    STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. VAM                      5
         ORGANIC CHEMICALS LIMITED

    Dhruv Aggarwal, Nandini Gore, Debmalya Banerjee, Sonia         A
Nigam, Kartik Bhatnagar, R.N. Karanjawala, Manik
Karanjawala, Praveen Kumar, Rani Chhabra, Siddhartha
Chowdhury, Mukesh Verma, Aftab Alam, Yash Pal Dhingra,
Kavin Gulati, Rashmi Singh, Ruby Singh Ahuja, Manu Nair (for
Suresh A. Shroff & Co.), Ashok Kumar Sinha, Sudhanshu Goil,        B
B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, K.R. Sasiprabhu, Arvind Kumar
Sharma, Naresh Kumar, B.K. Satija, Pravir Kumar Jain, E.C.
Agrawala, Suruchi Aggarwal, Pramod Dayal, Nikunj Dayal,
Rupesh Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Krishna Kumar, R.S., K.S.
Mahadewan, Sanjeev Malhotra, Prakash Kumar Singh, Jatin            c
Zaveri and Shally Bhasin Maheshwari for the Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    S.H. KAPADIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel on both sides.
                                                                   D
    2. Delay condoned.

     3. Leave granted in the special leave petition.

      4. In all these matters, respondents are manufacturers of
notified goods. These respondents have been given central          E
registration under Section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956,
and also Recognition Certificate under Section 4-B of t:ie Uttar
Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948, for purchase of high speed diesel
oil at concessional rate. These certificates have been given on
different dates by the appellants.                                 F

    5. The lead matter is State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Ml
s. Varn Organic Chemicals Limited [Civil Appeal No.1929 of
2004].

     6. Mis. Varn Organic Chemicals Limited is a public limited    G
company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, having
it's registered office at Amroha, Uttar Pradesh. It has
established a continuous process chemical industry for the
manufacture of Vinyl Pyridine, Picoline, etc. [for short,
'chemicals']. The said Company is registered under the Uttar       H
    6        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A   Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 [for short, '1948 Act'], as well as
    under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [for short, '1956 Act'],
    as a dealer.

       7. M/s. Varn Organic Chemicals Limited [for short,
  "Company"] was granted a Registration Certificate under
8
  Section 7 of 1956 Act in which a List of Items was annexed.
  As per the said List, the Company was entitled to purchase
  goods under 1956 Act. The Company was also granted a
  Recognition Certificate under Section 4-B of 1948 Act
  authorizing it to purchase goods on concessional rates. On the
C basis of the Recognition Certificate granted by the State, the
  Company became entitled to purchase various goods against
  Form 111-B, which was issued by the Assessing Authority on
  payment of concessional rate of tax. Since the Company had
  obtained Registration Certificate under Section 7 of 1956 Act,
D it purchased high speed diesel oil ['HSD', for short] against
  Form-C from Indian Oil Corporation Limited. The Company had
  also bought HSD against Form 111-B from Indian Oil Corporation
  Limited under which Indian Oil Corporation Limited charged
  the tax at the rate of two per cent against Form 111-B.
E
       8. On 12th June, 2000, a meeting was organised by the
  Principal Secretary, Finance, Uttar Pradesh, in which a
  decision was taken that the benefit of Form 111-B for purchase
  of HSD to be used in Diesel Generating Sets in the factory
F should not be given the benefit of concessional rate since such
  HSD was not directly used in the manufacture of notified goods
  [chemicals]; rather, it was used for generating electricity in the
  Generating Set which electricity was then captively used for
  manufacturing chemicals. On the basis of the said decision
G dated 12th June, 2000, the Additional Commissioner, Trade
  Tax, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, issued a Circular on 20th June,
  2000, to all the subordinate officers for it's implementation and,
  accordingly, all Trade Tax Authorities of the State, who, at the
  relevant time, were under the administra'tive control of the
  Commissioner, issued notices for deletion of HSD, an item
H
   STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. VAM                             7
 ORGANIC CHEMICALS LIMITED [S.H. KAPADIA, J.]
mentioned in the Company's Recognition Certificate. It is this           A
show-cause notice which came to be challenged by M/s. Varn
Organic Chemicals Limited and others by filing writ petitions
in the Allahabad High Court.

      9. In the writ petition filed by the Company, it was submitted
                                                                         8
that HSD was a fuel, which was absolutely essential for
operating the Diesel Generating Set [D.G. Set] in the factory
as the Company's factory was engaged in a continuous
 process chemical industry and, in the absence of HSD, the D.G.
 Set would become non-functional and if electricity cannot be
generated, it would be impossible to produce chemicals.                  C
According to the Company, HSD is used in D.G. Sets to
generate electric energy which is required for chemical industry.
 In this connection, reliance was placed on Explanation to
Section 4-B of 1948 Act. In reply, it was the case of the
 Department that HSD is used in "the D.G. Set for generating             D_
electric energy which is not only used for chemical industry but
 is also used for electrical appliances in office, factory and to
 supply electricity for working of lights, fans, etc. According to
the Department, HSD is used in the Generating Set for
production of electricity; that the unit of the Company was not          E
 registered/recognised for production of electricity; that it was
 not a public utility service under the relevant Electricity Act; and,
 hence, the Company cannot call HSD a fuel/raw-material used
for production of electricity in this case. According to the
Department, in the present case, the notified goods consisted            F
of chemicals and not electricity, hence, HSD was not used in
the process of production of chemicals directly. For the afore-
stated reasons, the Department submitted that, on the facts and
 in the circumstances of this case, HSD cannot be included in
the Recognition Certificate of the Company. By the impugned              G
judgements, the High Court· came to the C'Onclusion that the
stand of the Department was highly technical. According to the
High Court, HSD was used by the Company for the manufacture
of chemicals [notified goods], as mentioned in Section 4-8(2)
of 1948 Act. According to it, the word "directly" is not mentioned
                                                                         H
     8        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 4 S.C.R.


 A   in Section 4-8(2) of 1948 Act. It furt:1er held that Section 4-8(2)
     of 1948 Act does not mention that the goods, referred to in sub-
     section (1 ), should be used directly for the manufacture of the
     notified goods. In the light of the said reasoning, the High Court
     came to the conclusion, by the impugned judgements, that the
  B show-cause notices issued by the Department calling upon the
     Companies to show-cause as to why HSD should not be
     delE!ted from the Recognition Certificate based on the Circulars
     dated 20th June, 2000, etc., be set aside. That, it was not open
     to the Department to delete HSD, furnace oil, liquid fuels or
  C gaseous fuels from the Recognition Certificate as such oil
     [HSD] constituted a fuel required for the manufacture of
     chemicals in terms of the Explanation to Section 4-8(2) of 1948
     Act. Against the said judgements, the State has come to this
     Court by above-mentioned civil appeals. We may clarify that,
    .in all, there are approximately 138 appeals against the
· D impugned judgements of the Allahabad High Court in various
     writ petitions. Suffice it to state that common issue arises for
     determination in this batch of cases, namely, Whether the
     Department was right in issuing show-cause notices calling
     upon the Companies to show-cause as to why HSD should not
  E be deleted as an item from their respective Recognition
     Certificates issued under Section 4-8(2) of 1948 Act?

       10. Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for
  the Department, invited our attention to Annexure CA(I) of the
F Paper Book, which is a List of Items registered under Section
  4-B of 1948 Act. It appears to be a List annexed to the
  Registration Certificate. What is argued by the learned senior
  counsel is that, under Section 4-8(2) of 1948 Act read with..
  Explanation thereto a dealer has to satisfy the Assessing
G Authority, empowered to issue Recognition Certificate, that he
  requires the duly itemised goods mentioned in the Recognition
  Certificate for use in the manufacture by him of any notified
  goods [final product]. According to the learned senior counsel,
  the Recognition Certificate, including the List of Items under
H Section 4-8(2) of 1948 Act, cannot be read in isolation. Each
   STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. VAM                           9
 ORGANIC CHEMICALS LIMITED [S.H. KAPADIA, J.]

Item in the List is duly recognised by the Assessing Authority         A
looking to its requirement for use in the manufacture of the final
product [notified goods]. In this connection, it was submitted t~at
HSD does find place in the said List but if the said Item is used
to make the Generating Set functional for generating elect.ric
energy which, in turn, is captively consumed in the manufacture        B
of chemical goods, then, in that event, an assessee will not be
entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of tax. Learned
counsel invited our attention to several items in the said List,
including air-conditioners, stabilizers, electrical panels and
 Diesel Generating Set. It was argued on behalf of the                 C
Department that if HSD is used in the Generating Set, it would
not amount to it being used in the manufacture of chemical
goods but it would amount to HSD being used to operate the
machines. On the other hand, it was urged on behalf of the
assessee(s) that, in the absence of HSD, it was not possible           D
to operate the D.G. Set; that, the assessee(s) has installed
several D.G. Sets in it's factory for the manufacture of electricity
which Sets cannot function without the use of HSD. According
to the assessee(s), there is nothing in sub- section (2) of
Section 4-B of 1948 Act to suggest that HSD should be used
directly in the manufacture of chemical goods. In any event,           E
according to the assessee(s}, in the List enclosed with the
Recognition Certificate, Diesel Generating Set is mentioned.
Therefore, HSD, in any event, is directly used to operate Diesel
Generating Set. What is argued on behalf of the assessee(s)
is that, if D.G. Set is an item duly recognised by the Assessing       F
Authority, the machines cannot operate without the use of HSD
and, in the circumstances, there is, in any event, a direct use
of HSD in the working of the D.G. Set. As stated above, the
High Court has accepted the oontentions advanced on behalf
of the assessee(s).                                                    G
     11. At the outset, we quote hereinbelow Section 4-8(2) with
the Explanation as also Section 4-B(4)(ii) of 1948 Act:

     "4-B. Specific Relief to certain manufacturers.--
                                                                       H
    10          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2010] 4 S.C.R.


A        [1] xxx xxx xxx

         [2] Where a dealer requires any goods, referred to in sub-
         section (1) for use in the manufacture by him in the State,
         of any notified goods, or in the packing of such notified
         goods manufactured or processed by him, and such
B
         notified goods are intended to be sold by him. in the State
         or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the
         course of export out of India, he may apply to the assessing
         authority in such form and manner and within such period
         as may be prescribed, for the grant of a recognition
c        certificate in respect thereof, and if the applicant satisfies
         such requirements including requirement of depositing late
         fee, and conditions as may be prescribed, the assessing
         authority shall grant to him in respect of such goods a
         recognition certificate in such form and subject to such
D        conditions, as may be prescribed.

         Explanation.-- For the purposes of this sub- section~-

          [a]    'goods required for use in the manufacture' shall
                 mean raw materials, processing materials,
E
                 machinery, plant, equipment, consumable stores,
                 spare parts, accessories, components, sub-
                 assemblies, fuels or lubricants; and

          [b]    'notified goods' means such goods as may, from
F                time to time be notified by the State Government in
                 that behalf.

         [4][ii] The assessing authority may amend a recognition
         certificate granted under sub- section (2), either of its own
         motion or on the application of the dealer, where the dealer
G
         has changed the name or place of his business or has
         closed down any branch or has opened a branch or for any
         other sufficient reason:

              Provided that no recognition certificate shall be
H        cancelled or amended by Assessing Authority of its own
   STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. YAM                      11
 ORGANIC CHEMICALS LIMITED [S.H. KAPADIA, J.]
    ·motion except after reasonable opportunity of being heard    A
     has been given to the dealer."

      12. We are looking at the present controversy from a
different point of view. The High Court has not examined, in the
present case, the nature of the power exercised by the
                                                                   8
Assessing Authority under Section 4-B(4)(ii) of 1948 Act. This
point of view arises because, in this case(s), a show-cause
notice has been issued to the assessee calling upon the .
assessee to show-cause as to why HSD mentioned in its
Recognition Certificate should not be deleted as it is being
used for generating electricity in the Generating Set which C
electricity is then consumed by the factory. A number of writ
petitions were filed in the Allahabad High Court against the
show-cause notices. The High Court intervened at the show-
cause notice stage. If one looks at Section 4-B(4)(ii) of 1948
Act, one finds that the Assessing Authority is vested with D
discretionary power to amend the Recognition Certificate
granted under sub-section (2) of Sect~n 4-B of 1948 Act either
on it's own motion or on the application of the dealer where the
dealer has changed his name or place of business or has
closed down his branch office or for any other sufficient reason. E
By way of proviso, it has been clarified that no Recognition
Certificate shall be cancelled or amended by the Assessing
Authority on it's own motion without giving reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the dP.aler [assessee]. If one looks
at the Scheme of Section 4-B of 1948 Act, one finds that a F
statutory power is given to the Assessing Authority to issue the
Recognition Certificate in respect of the notified goods. There
could be a number of notified goods. In fact, in 1998,
"electricity" itself was one of the notified goods. In our view,
under the Scheme of Section 4-8(2) of 1948 Act, the G
Assessing Authority is vested with the statutory power to issue
Recognition Certificate in respect of items enumerated therein,
which are required by the dealer for use in the manufacture of
any notified goods. In the present case, the assessee(s) is
manufacturing chemical goods. On issuance of the Recognition H
    12       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A Certificate, a concessional rate of tax becomes applicable in
  respect .of items enumerated in such certificate. It is a
  conditional exemption which is given to the dealer [assessee].
  It is important to bear in mind that a Recognition Certificate is
  issued under Section 4-B of 1948 Act in respect of notified
s goods [See sub-section (2A) of Section 4-B].

         13. Power to grant exemption from payment of duty or to
  .pay concessional duty is expressly conferred on the Assessing
   Authority. It is a case of conditional exemption. While exercising
   that power, generally no hearing or reasons are required to be
C given unless the Act so provides. In this case, a proviso is
   inserted in Section 4-B(4)(ii) of 1948 Act to say that no
   Recognition Certificate shall be cancelled or amended by the
   Assessing Authority without giving reasonable opportunity of
   being heard to the dealer. It is for this reason that, in the present
D case, the Assessing Authority has given show-cause notices
   to all the respondent-dealers calling upon them to show-cause
   as to why HSD, as an item, should not be deleted from the
   Recognition Certificate.

E      14. In the present case, the Department submitted, before
  us, that, by mistake, HSD has been included in the List. The
  Department seeks to rectify that mistake. The question, before
  us, is - whether the Department is precluded from doing so?
  This question has not been answered by the High Court. In our
F view, under Section 4-B(4)(ii) of 1948 Act, the Assessing
  Authority is vested with discretionary power to amend a
  Recognition Certificate granted under sub-section (2) of
  Section 4-B of 1948 Act either on it's own motion or on the
  application of the dealer for any sufficient reason. This pre-
G condition of "sufficiency of reasons" requires a show- cause
  notice to be given to the dealer in whose favour a Recognition
  Certificate exists calling upon him to show- cause as to why
  an item should not be deleted in a giveri case. Therefore, in
  our view, each case needs to be examined by the Assessing
  Authority if it seeks to exercise it's authority to delete an item
H
   STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. VAM                        13
 ORGANIC CHEMICALS LIMITED [S.H. KAPADIA, J.]
from a Recognition Certificate. Same is the position if the          A
Assessing Authority seeks to cancel a Recognition Certificate
for the reasons indicated in the said sub- section. Not only that,
while amending or cancelling a Recognition Certificate, the
Assessing Authority is also required to give reasons for
amending or cancelling the existing Recognition Certificate or       B
for deleting an item therefrom.

     15. One more aspect needs to be highlighted. Under the
proviso to Section 4-B(4)(ii) of 1948 Act, the words used are
"no recognition certificate shall be cancelled or amended by
Assessing Authority of its own motion except after reasonable        C
opportunity of being heard". It is important to note that the word
"rectification" does not find place in the said proviso.
Conceptually, the word "rectification" is different from the word
"amendment". This point is relevant because, in the present
case, the stand of the Department is that HSD is inserted in         D
the Recognition Certificate by mistake. The Department seeks
to delete that item on the ground of mistake. That would not be
possible. When a Recognition Certificate is issued, a benefit
of concessional rate of tax is given to the dealer. He arranges
his business affairs on those lines. Therefore, that benefit         E
cannot be withdrawn retrospectively. Such benefit can be
withdrawn, at the highest, from the date of the show-cause
notice when the Assessing Authority proposes to delete an item
from the Recognition Certificate. In our view, such a show-cause
notice has been given in each of the cases before us.                F
Accordingly, we construe such show-cause notice to be for
amending the Recognition Certificate in the facts and
circumstances of this case, particularly because, in some of the
cases, we find that Recognition Certificates have been issued
as far back as in 1980.                                              G

      16. For the reasons given hereinabove, we remit all these
cases to the Assessing Authority with a direction to treat the
show-cause notice(s) issued for the purposes of amending the
existing Recognition Certificate(s). Each assessee will be given
                                                                     H
    14       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A   a hearing. Each case for amendment of Recognition Certificate
    will be decided in accordance with the procedure laid down in
    Section 4-B(4)(ii) of 1948 Act. The Assessing Authority will
    decide each case on it's own merits uninfluenced by the
    decision of the High- Power Committee dated 12th June, 2000.
B   It will also decide each of such cases uninfluenced by Circulars
    issued by the Additional Commissioner dated 20th June, 2000,
    and others. The Assessing Officer will decide each case on it's
    own merits uninfluenced by the obseNations made by the High
    Court in the impugned judgements.

C       17. One more clarification needs to be mentioned. In some
   of these cases, pursuant to the show-cause notice(s), the
   Assessing Authority has also passed adjudication orders in
   terms of the Circulars issued by the Commissioner. In view of
   our order herein, we direct the Assessing Officer to decide
D these cases de nov6 on the basis of the show-cause notices
   and also uninfluenced by the obseNations made in the orders
 · of adjudication earlier. In each case, the Assessing· Officer will
   give a reasoned order. However, if an order amending the
   Recognition Certificate is issued by the Assessing Authority,
E the same will operate only from the date of issuance of show-
   cause notice.

         18. Subject to what is stated hereinabove, this batch of civil
    appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh stand disposed of
F   with no order as to costs.

    R.P.                                      Appeals disposed of.