2014 (7) TMI 620 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rejection of application for benefit under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1989 - manufacturing of vanaspati ghee - from March 27, 1995 benefit of scheme was curtailed - assessee claimed that they have started production on March 26,1995 and made huge investment - initially State Level Screening Committee, Jaipur (SLSC) rejected the application for benefit of scheme - However in a remand proceedings, as directed by the board to reconsider the case, SLSC allowed the benefit of scheme - Held that - This application dated March 25, 1995 has a great bearing on the facts of the instant case, in as such as the SLSC has alleged that the dates were manipulated on the part of the unit to show the production and submission of the application with a view to take advantage of the benefit under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme as it is claimed that the application was filed at Alwar on March 25, 1995 when the competent authority was SLSC, Jaipur, the production is shown to have started on March 26, 1995 and the budget speech is on March 27, 1995, i.e., the time gap is so little that the SLSC even doubted about the manipulation of the dates particularly in view of the fact that there was no occasion for the respondents to file an application at DIC, Alwar, when as per counsel for the petitioner-assessing officer, the application was widely known to have been submitted to the SLSC, Jaipur, to avail of benefits as per scheme. It is true that the benefit arising as per the Incentive Scheme for the benefit to the assessees at large and being beneficial, should be granted but in the instant case, the facts have not been clearly stated on record and something more is required to be placed on record by the respondent assessee as both the material facts, which the court wanted to peruse, were not available with either side of the parties - Matter remanded back - Decided partly in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1989 for manufacturing units.
2. Timeliness of application submission and commencement of production.
3. Validity of the application submitted to DIC, Alwar instead of SLSC, Jaipur.
4. Allegations of manipulation of dates for benefit under the Incentive Scheme.
5. Rejection of the application by SLSC and subsequent appeal to Tax Board.
6. Consideration of capital investment and production commencement dates.
7. Applicability of previous court judgments on similar cases.
8. Decision on eligibility of the respondent-assessee for benefits under the Incentive Scheme.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves a dispute regarding the interpretation of the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1989 for manufacturing units, specifically related to the eligibility criteria and benefits under the scheme.

2. The issue of timeliness arises concerning the submission of the application and the commencement of production by the respondent-assessee, impacting their qualification for the benefits under the Incentive Scheme.

3. The validity of the application submitted to DIC, Alwar instead of SLSC, Jaipur is questioned, highlighting the procedural requirements and the authority responsible for processing such applications.

4. Allegations of manipulation of dates to exploit the benefits under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme are raised, leading to doubts about the genuineness of the application and production commencement dates.

5. The rejection of the application by SLSC and the subsequent appeal to the Tax Board form a significant part of the dispute, emphasizing the legal recourse available to address grievances related to such decisions.

6. The consideration of capital investment details and the dates of production commencement are crucial factors in determining the eligibility of the respondent-assessee for availing benefits under the Incentive Scheme.

7. The applicability of previous court judgments, such as Lokendra Industries v. State and subsequent reversals by the Supreme Court in similar cases, adds a legal precedent dimension to the decision-making process.

8. Ultimately, the judgment revolves around the decision on the eligibility of the respondent-assessee for benefits under the Incentive Scheme, requiring a thorough review of the facts, submissions, and legal provisions to reach a just conclusion.