2008 (3) TMI 649 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Grant of exemption in the matter of payment of tax vide annexure P16 dated September 22, 1995 refused - Held that - The petitioner having never opted to change over from the Scheme of 1981 to the Scheme of 1986 cannot be denied the benefit for consideration under the Scheme and notification of 1981 on these grounds. That being so, this is a case where the State Level Committee and the District Level Committee have rejected the claim of the petitioner on incorrect consideration. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated September 22, 1995 (annexure P16) issued by the State Level Committee is quashed. Matter is remanded back to the State Level Committee to examine the case of the petitioner in accordance with the notification dated October 23, 1981 and after evaluating the claim and eligibility of the petitioner in the light of the provision of the said notification, decide the claim for grant of exemption in accordance with law.

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for tax exemption under the 1981 Scheme.
2. Application of the 90-day limitation period for changing the option from the 1981 Scheme to the 1986 Scheme.
3. Incorrect rejection of the petitioner's application based on the 90-day limitation period.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Tax Exemption under the 1981 Scheme:
The petitioner, a small-scale industry engaged in cutting and polishing stones, sought exemption from tax under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The petitioner claimed eligibility under the notification issued on October 23, 1981 (the 1981 Scheme), which provided tax exemptions to certain industries. The petitioner commenced production on February 13, 1989, and applied for exemption under the 1981 Scheme. Despite fulfilling the conditions stipulated in the 1981 notification, the District Level Committee rejected the petitioner's claim, leading to a series of appeals and a writ petition. The court noted that the petitioner had consistently sought exemption under the 1981 Scheme and was entitled to have his application considered under this scheme.

2. Application of the 90-Day Limitation Period for Changing the Option from the 1981 Scheme to the 1986 Scheme:
The respondents argued that the petitioner's application was rightly rejected because it was not submitted within 90 days, as required by the proviso to clause (12A) of the notification dated March 3, 1989. This notification amended the 1986 Scheme and introduced a 90-day limitation period for dealers who had opted for the 1981 Scheme to switch to the 1986 Scheme. The court clarified that the 90-day limitation period applied only to those seeking to change their option from the 1981 Scheme to the 1986 Scheme. Since the petitioner never opted to switch schemes, this limitation period was incorrectly applied to his case.

3. Incorrect Rejection of the Petitioner's Application Based on the 90-Day Limitation Period:
The court found that the State Level Committee and the District Level Committee had incorrectly applied the provisions of the notification dated March 3, 1989, and clause (12A) to reject the petitioner's application. The petitioner had never sought to change from the 1981 Scheme to the 1986 Scheme, and thus the 90-day limitation period was not applicable. The court held that the petitioner's right to claim exemption under the 1981 Scheme subsisted and was improperly denied.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order dated September 22, 1995, issued by the State Level Committee, and remanded the matter back to the State Level Committee. The Committee was directed to re-examine the petitioner's case in accordance with the 1981 notification and decide the claim for exemption within two months from the date of receipt of the court's order. The petition was allowed without any order as to costs.

← Previous Next →