2017 (4) TMI 1326 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Cumulative exemption under the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - 5100 M.T. of cotton yarn produced by the petitioner - interpretation of statute - clauses of the eligibility certificate. Held that - there is no such condition in the certificate which would disqualify or disentitle the petitioner to avail of exemption from payment of tax, in case of its annual production is more than 5100 M.T. per year. The only stipulation which would come into play in this regard would be the maximum limit of exemption, that has already been prescribed i.e. 250% of the capital investment in fixed assets of ₹ 693.00 lakhs. The impugned order passed by the revisional authority denying exemption from payment of tax to the petitioner on annual production exceeding 5100 M.T. is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of the eligibility certificate and law - impugned revisional order is quashed. However, as the petitioner is required to be reassessed on the basis of the interpretation of the eligibility certificate, the matter is remitted back to the Assessing Authority to reassess the petitioner to tax on the basis of the interpretation given by us and thereafter pass a fresh order in that respect - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of eligibility certificate for tax exemption on production capacity exceeding the limit.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a company engaged in yarn manufacturing, challenged an order by the Revisional Authority granting tax exemption only up to 5100 M.T. of cotton yarn production, despite an increased installed capacity of 5100 M.T. The petitioner had obtained eligibility certificates for exemption under the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, based on its expanded capacity. The petitioner argued that the authority misinterpreted the eligibility certificate dated 29.5.2014 by limiting the exemption to 5100 M.T. annually, contrary to the conditions specified in the certificate. The Deputy Advocate General contended that allowing exemption beyond 5100 M.T. would provide undue benefit exceeding the certificate's terms.

The High Court analyzed the eligibility certificate and relevant notifications. The certificate granted exemption based on the backward district category and allowed enhanced production from 4189 M.T. to 5100 M.T. It stipulated that exemption was applicable only if the annual production exceeded the original capacity of 4189 M.T. The certificate also specified a 9-year exemption period from the date of commercial production after expansion, subject to a maximum of 250% of the capital investment in fixed assets. The Court noted that besides this condition, there was no disqualifying provision for availing exemption on production exceeding 5100 M.T., except for the prescribed maximum limit.

Consequently, the Court held that the revisional authority's order denying exemption on production exceeding 5100 M.T. was erroneous and against the eligibility certificate's provisions. The order was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the Assessing Authority for reassessment based on the Court's interpretation of the certificate. The petition was allowed and disposed of accordingly.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the eligibility conditions for tax exemption based on production capacity, emphasizing that the exemption limit was tied to the capital investment and not restricted by an annual production cap. The Court's decision highlighted the importance of adhering to the terms specified in eligibility certificates to determine tax benefits accurately.