2001 (3) TMI 1007 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the notification (corrigendum) dated September 30, 1999.
2. Applicability of the notification to the petitioner.
3. Quashing of the provisional assessment orders and notices.
4. Quashing of the order of the State Level Screening Committee (SLSC) dated December 13, 1999.
5. Quashing of the eligibility certificate dated February 29, 2000, restricting benefits to 25% instead of full benefits.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the Notification (Corrigendum) Dated September 30, 1999:
The petitioner challenged the notification (corrigendum) dated September 30, 1999, which was published in the Gazette on January 7, 2000. The corrigendum transferred sick units from serial No. 4 to serial No. 3 in annexure B of the Exemption Scheme, thus reducing the tax exemption benefits from 100% to 25%. The court examined whether the corrigendum constituted a correction or an amendment. It was held that the corrigendum amounted to an amendment rather than a mere correction, as it altered the substantive rights of the petitioner. The court concluded that the corrigendum could not have retrospective effect and would only apply from the date of its publication in the Gazette, i.e., January 7, 2000.

2. Applicability of the Notification to the Petitioner:
The petitioner, a sick industrial unit, argued that it was entitled to full benefits under the original scheme as its application was complete and accepted by the SLSC before the issuance of the corrigendum. The court recognized that the petitioner's status as a sick unit had been finalized by the SLSC on June 17, 1999, and thus, the petitioner was entitled to the benefits under the original scheme up to the date of the corrigendum's publication. The court held that the petitioner's vested rights under the original scheme could not be taken away retrospectively by the corrigendum.

3. Quashing of the Provisional Assessment Orders and Notices:
The petitioner sought to quash the provisional assessment orders and notices issued based on the corrigendum. The court noted that these orders and notices were issued following the corrigendum, which had reduced the benefits. Given that the corrigendum could not apply retrospectively, the court held that the provisional assessment orders and notices should be quashed to the extent they were based on the reduced benefits.

4. Quashing of the Order of the State Level Screening Committee (SLSC) Dated December 13, 1999:
The petitioner challenged the SLSC's order dated December 13, 1999, which classified the petitioner as a sick unit but restricted the benefits to 25% due to the corrigendum. The court found that the SLSC's decision was influenced by the corrigendum, which was not applicable retrospectively. Therefore, the court quashed the SLSC's order to the extent it restricted the benefits based on the corrigendum.

5. Quashing of the Eligibility Certificate Dated February 29, 2000:
The petitioner sought to quash the eligibility certificate dated February 29, 2000, which limited the benefits to 25% instead of the full benefits under the original scheme. The court held that the eligibility certificate, issued based on the corrigendum, could not restrict the petitioner's benefits retrospectively. Hence, the court quashed the eligibility certificate to the extent it limited the benefits to 25%.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the corrigendum dated September 30, 1999, amounted to an amendment rather than a correction and could not apply retrospectively. The petitioner was entitled to the full benefits under the original Exemption Scheme up to the date of the corrigendum's publication in the Gazette, i.e., January 7, 2000. The court allowed the petition to the extent that the petitioner was entitled to the original benefits up to January 7, 2000, and subsequent benefits as per the amended scheme. The interim order was extended, and the petitioner was granted the liberty to file an appeal within four weeks, which the appellate authority should entertain on merit without insisting on the issue of limitation. The petition was partly allowed, with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →