9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther notice proposing to take action against the writ petitioner under sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, if the demand is not met within the specified time therein. Therefore, the writ petition seeking the following reliefs: (a) a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other writ order or direction as this Honourable Court deems fit quashing the demand notices, exhibits R, S and T bearing Nos. 3010206/78-79 issued by the second respondent dated 3rd November, 1978, 31504838/78-79 and assessment No. 31504838/79 issued by the third respondent dated 20th August, 1979 and 20th January, 1980, respectively declaring that the demands made therein are illegal, opposed to law and ultra vires of the powers of third ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to certain benefits concerning sales tax. Therefore pursuant to the Notification dated 30th June, 1969, it was followed by Notification dated 11th August, 1975, providing for procedure to derive the benefit in regard to refund of sales tax on raw material purchased by certain new industries set up after the date of notification in 1969 the company was withholding payment of the sales tax due to the Government to be adjusted against the refund available to it under the 1969 notification as at exhibit A. By the 1975 notification as at exhibit B, a procedure was provided by which industrial units which were entitled to get the benefit under 1969 order were required to make an application each year seeking permission to withhold the payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... objections, the company has clarified as to how a new company was formed in 1971 pursuing the object for which the earlier company had been incorporated and new capital structure was provided for and raised and it was only in or about 1973 after obtaining the loan, the factory was erected partly on account of the incentives offered by the 1969 notification of the State Government as at exhibit A and therefore, the company was and is entitled to the benefits or incentives offered for a period of 5 years which according to the company would have ended in the year 1980-81. We must not at this stage fail to notice that a further notification came to be issued by the respondent-State of Karnataka in the year 1977 as at exhibit G bearing the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cedent for deriving the benefit of incentive offered is that it should go into production after commencement of the operation of the notification extending the incentive. The very purpose of offering incentive was for encouraging the setting up of industries in the State. Therefore that petitioner had succeeded in some manner to the name and objects of the earlier company will not disentitle it to the benefits of the incentive offered by the 1969 notification. The State cannot deny that it went into production only in 1976 which is very much after the notification as at exhibits A and B. In fact it cannot be disputed for the simple reason, permission was indeed granted for the six months preceding 1st April, 1977 to withhold the sales tax p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y are not abrogated by the Order No. CI 141 FMI 76 dated 12th January, 1977, which order will apply only to the new industries that have been started by the petitioner on or after that date; (ii) that the claim of each of the petitioner in respect of a new industrial unit started on or after 30th June, 1969, but on or before 12th January, 1977, for refund, adjustment and exemption from payment of sales tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act No. 25 of 1957), shall be considered and disposed of by the competent authority/ authorities in accordance with Order Nos. CI 58 FMI 69 and FD 396 CSL 74 dated 30th June, 1969 and 11th August, 1975, respectively, and any other order made thereto by the Government of Karnataka from ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for by the petitioner and that is the notification as at annexure G dated 12th January, 1977, in clauses (iv) and (v) specifically excluded the incentive offered to new industrial units if the units had an investment of fixed asset in excess of Rs. 10 lakhs. That was not a question considered in Dharmendra's case [1988] 70 STC 59 (SC) and ILR (1979) 2 Kar 1909, either by this Court or the Supreme Court as it was never pleaded nor argued. Clauses 4 and 5 read as follows: "(iv) Industrial units with an investment on fixed assets of Rs. 10 lakhs and above and who are entitled to a development loan under the Government order dated 4th April, 1975, will not be entitled to the concession of refund of sales tax on raw materials. (v) This scheme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
