2009 (2) TMI 761 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the Tribunal was justified in granting exemption on purchase turnover of rubber wood by the respondent for the year 2001-02? Held that - The condition of the notification is such that exemption is available to the industry so long as it remains as a 100 per cent EOU and such exemption is only for a period of five years and that it should be reckoned from the date of first approval and the period cannot be extended by renewals of approval. The tax revision petition is consequently allowed, reversing the order of the Tribunal and by restoring the assessment. However, we make it clear that the industrial unit is entitled to claim any other exemption or concession if available under any other notification. The respondent is free to claim the same and while revising the assessment, the assessing officer should consider alternate claims, if any, made.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of exemption notification for 100% Export Oriented Units (EOU) regarding purchase turnover of rubber wood for the year 2001-02.

Analysis:
The key issue in this case was whether the respondent, approved as a 100% EOU by the Central Government, was entitled to exemption on the purchase turnover of rubber wood for the year 2001-02. The dispute arose from a notification providing exemption for five years for the purchase of industrial raw materials by 100% EOU from the date of approval by the Central Government. The notification was later amended to commence the exemption period from the date of commercial production rather than the date of approval. The assessing officer denied the exemption for the year 2001-02, stating that it had expired in 2000. The respondent argued that subsequent renewal of recognition as a 100% EOU entitled them to another five years of exemption. The Tribunal accepted this argument, leading to the State filing a revision petition challenging the Tribunal's decision.

The High Court analyzed the notification and subsequent amendments to determine the correct interpretation. The Court noted that the exemption was originally intended for five years from the date of approval as a 100% EOU by the Central Government. Subsequent amendments clarified that the exemption period should start from the date of commencement of commercial production to benefit industries requiring raw materials post-production commencement. The Court emphasized that the exemption was limited to five years from the date of the first approval, regardless of subsequent renewals. Upholding the original intent of the notification, the Court ruled that perpetual exemption through renewal would contradict the notification's spirit. The Court allowed the tax revision petition, overturning the Tribunal's decision and reinstating the assessment, while clarifying that the industrial unit could claim other available exemptions under different notifications.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the interpretation of the exemption notification for 100% EOU regarding the purchase turnover of rubber wood. It underscored the limited five-year exemption period from the date of the first approval as a 100% EOU by the Central Government, rejecting perpetual exemption through subsequent renewals. The ruling aimed to uphold the notification's intended benefit duration and prevent misuse of continuous exemptions beyond the specified period.