9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1502 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of Notification dated 09.06.2000 issued by the respondents amending their earlier incentive notification dated 14.09.1998 - Exemption granted from payment of sales tax and central sales tax to the dealer establishing Consumer Industrial Unit i.e. industry wherein the electricity is generated by the dealer or the electricity sold / wheeled to him by the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board in lieu of electricity generated by the registered dealer in his eligible unit - HELD THAT - In the present case the petitioner / Company was certainly entitled for exemption flowing out of the notification dated 14.09.1998 and the exemption for which the petitioner / Company was entitled has been withdrawn by virtue of a subsequent notification issued by the respondents dated 09.06.2000 as notification has been made applicable with retrospective effect. In light of the earlier judgment delivered by this Court in the case of M/S. MALWA VANASPATI CHEMICAL CO. LTD. VERSUS STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE TWO OTHERS 2017 (3) TMI 1651 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT the respondents could not have made applicable the subsequent notification dated 09.06.2000 with retrospective effect. The impugned orders dated 22.02.2005 (Annexure-P/16) and 22.02.2005 (Annexure-P/20) are hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to extend the facility of tax exemption as per notification dated 14.09.1998 which was in force prior to the amendment done in the notification while amending the notification dated 14.09.1998 on 09.06.2000. The subsequent notification dated 09.06.2000 to the extent it has been made applicable retrospectively to the petitioner s unit is also hereby quashed - Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashment of the notification dated 09.06.2000. 2. Validity of retrospective application of the amended notification. 3. Entitlement of tax exemption under the original notification dated 14.09.1998. 4. Rejection of the petitioner's application for tax exemption. Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashment of the Notification Dated 09.06.2000: The petitioner, Dhar Automotive Private Limited, challenged the notification dated 09.06.2000, which amended the earlier notification dated 14.09.1998. The amendment retrospectively introduced a cut-off date of 31.12.1999 and new conditions effective from 31.12.1999. The petitioner argued that the benefits granted under the original notification could not be withdrawn retrospectively. The court examined the sequence of events and found that the petitioner had taken substantial steps to establish the Wind Electric Generator Unit based on the original notification. The court concluded that the subsequent notification could not apply retrospectively, quashing the notification dated 09.06.2000 to the extent it applied retrospectively. 2. Validity of Retrospective Application of the Amended Notification: The court relied on several precedents, including the case of M/s Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Company Limited, where it was held that a right accrued under a notification could not be extinguished by a subsequent notification with retrospective effect. The court also referenced judgments from the Supreme Court and other High Courts, which consistently held that exemptions granted could not be withdrawn retrospectively. The court reiterated that the retrospective application of the notification dated 09.06.2000 was invalid and could not affect the petitioner’s rights accrued under the original notification. 3. Entitlement of Tax Exemption Under the Original Notification Dated 14.09.1998: The petitioner established the Wind Electric Generator Unit based on the incentives provided under the notification dated 14.09.1998. The unit commenced production on 31.03.2000, and the petitioner applied for tax exemption on 25.05.2000, prior to the issuance of the amending notification. The court noted that the petitioner had fulfilled all conditions under the original notification and was entitled to the tax exemption. The court emphasized that the petitioner's entitlement to the exemption could not be nullified by the retrospective amendment. 4. Rejection of the Petitioner's Application for Tax Exemption: The petitioner's application for tax exemption was rejected by the State Level Committee on 14.12.2004, based on the amended notification. The petitioner’s review application was also rejected. The court found that the rejection was based on the retrospective application of the amended notification, which was invalid. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned orders dated 22.02.2005 and directed the respondents to extend the tax exemption benefits as per the original notification dated 14.09.1998. Conclusion: The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the retrospective application of the notification dated 09.06.2000 and the orders rejecting the petitioner's application for tax exemption. The respondents were directed to extend the tax exemption benefits as per the original notification dated 14.09.1998. The judgment reinforced the principle that accrued rights under a notification could not be taken away by a subsequent notification with retrospective effect.
|
