9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (5) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1985. The petitioners applied for exemption from payment of sales tax under section 4-A of the Act and the notifications issued thereunder. By his proceeding dated 26th April, 1988, the Divisional Joint Director of Industries, Allahabad, informed the petitioners that their unit has been granted exemption under section 4-A of the Act for a period of three years commencing from 1st March, 1985. Contending that the date of starting production in the petitioners' unit should be taken as 20th May, 1986, being the date, on which power connection was given to them and not 1st March, 1985, as has been done by the Divisional Joint Director of Industries, the petitioners filed a review petition before the authorities. The petitioners further contended that they are entitled to five-year period of exemption commencing from 20th May, 1986, as, on the said date, capital investment in their unit was more than rupees three lacs. On 16th June, 1988, the petitioners say, they submitted further clarification in continuation of their review petition. By proceeding dated 23rd December, 1988 of the Divisional Level Committee (communicated by respondent No. 3 by his letter dated 29th December, 1988) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that the petitioners applied for registration on 30th January, 1985, saying that their business was to commence from 1st January, 1985. After necessary inquiry, a provisional registration under section 8-B of the Act was granted on 20th February, 1985. The petitioners filed monthly sale returns in the prescribed form. No sales were shown to have been effected in January and February, but sales worth Rs. 26,070 were shown to have been effected in March, 1985. The petitioners applied for exemption in November, 1985 and their application was received in the office on 21st November, 1985. In this application, the petitioners showed 1st March, 1985, the actual date of production in column No. 11 and in column No. 9, it was stated that the production started by hand tools since 1st March, 1985. Even in their S.S.I. registration, the date of commencement of production was shown as 1st March, 1985. It is stated that it is on this basis that the petitioners were granted exemption for a period of three years commencing from 1st March, 1985. However, when the petitioners filed a review petition, the date of commencement of the period of exemption was altered to 30th March, 1985, since tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeded, whichever is later". Sub-section (1) of section 4-A, as amended by the U.P. Amendment Act No. VI of 1985 with effect from 19th January, 1985, specifies the date from which the exemption could operate. In so far as it is relevant for the purposes of this case, it reads: ".......from such date on or after the date of starting production as may be specified by the State Government in such notification, which may be the date of the notification or a date prior or subsequent to the date of such notification, and where no date is specified from the date of first sale by such manufacturer if such sale takes place within six months from the date of starting production and in any other case from the date following the expiration of six months from the date of starting production......." A reading of the above provision shows that the date of commencement of the exemption period may be such as may be specified by the State Government in the notification issued by it and in cases where no such date is specified, it shall be the date of the first sale by such manufacturer provided such sale takes place within six months from the date of starting production; in case, however, the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Indeed, such a plea would be ridiculous. In the circumstances of the present case, we find that the date of starting production in the petitioners' unit is 1st March, 1985 and in view of subsection (1) of section 4-A, the date of the first sale, i.e., 30th March, 1985, should be taken as the date of commencement of the period of exemption, the same falling within six months of the date of starting production. It is well to remember that this Court while considering a writ petition in the nature of certiorari, does not sit in appeal over the judgment of the authorities. In Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan AIR 1964 SC 477, it was observed: "......In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
