2009 (7) TMI 1201 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Notificatio being dated May 6, 1986, issued by the State of Rajasthan in exercise of powers conferred by section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 challenged Held that - The relevant industry , therefore, has to be construed to mean, as would be understood and generally treated by the people in the trade and commerce, conversant with the subject, and comes to be known in the common parlance. The mere omission of the word of goods in clause (2) of annexure 1, which words have been considered by learned single judge has no adverse effect on the aspect, as to from which industry the relevant inputs are to be obtained for the accounting year 1984-85, for the purpose of computing the extent of eligibility of the assessee to claim partial exemption of tax under the notification. Whether the assessee could claim partial exemption on the basis of the input figures of other cement industry, which might have existed in the accounting year 1984-85, and in our view, the answer to this also has to be in the negative, inasmuch as, in that event, the assessee would not have been entitled to claim partial exemption under this notification, for want of existence of other manufacturer in the State, in the relevant industry during the accounting year 1984-85.

Summary

The High Court of Rajasthan, in a case involving a dispute over a partial tax exemption for a white cement manufacturer, upheld a judgment that favored the assessee. The case revolved around a notification issued by the State of Rajasthan in 1986, offering partial tax exemption to dealers manufacturing goods in the state. The key issue was the interpretation of the term "relevant industry" in the notification. The Revenue argued that it should encompass all industries, including those manufacturing gray cement, while the assessee contended it should refer specifically to the white cement industry. The court found in favor of the assessee, ruling that the relevant industry should be understood based on common trade knowledge and the specific goods manufactured by the assessee. The judgment emphasized the need for strict interpretation Norris of to,,,,,,, and,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, in in in,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,