Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1994 (11) TMI 374

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ection 4-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act for grant of eligibility certificate which was rejected on June 15, 1992, annexure 3 to the writ petition, on the grounds that sale deed filed by the petitioner goes to show that besides some of the partners being the owners of the land, there are other owners of the land, and no registered lease deed has been filed by the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed a review application before the said authority on June 20, 1992 which was also rejected by means of an order dated January 13, 1993, annexure 5 to the writ petition, on the ground that the land in question on which the unit is situate belongs to seven persons out of which only two are partners in the petitioners' firm. Neither partiti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . The petitioner by filing review application dated June 20, 1992 gave all these facts in detail further relying on a circular and the decision of this Court made earlier. However, the reviewing authority by means of the impugned order rejected the said application without considering the aforesaid facts as stated in the review application and the reference of the circular including the decision referred to therein. A reference has been made by the petitioner in the review petition of the decision of this Court reported in Kamal Agro Industries v. State of U.P. 1987 UPTC 1222 in which it is held that the application for eligibility certificate cannot be rejected on the ground that the unit is situate over a piece of land which belongs to on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er of the previous year-where the dealer makes good the deficiency even after the prescribed time, his exemption application may be treated as in order, but that can be only with reference to the date, on which the deficiency is made good. The application will, then be considered as having been made on that date, and on the basis of the said Rule the dealer will be entitled to a provisional exemption certificate. What in fact is held in that case is that before exemption can be claimed, the person claiming exemption must strictly fulfil the conditions underlying the grant of exemption and comply with all the requirements necessary before such grant is made. This case was not concerned regarding interpretation of the word in a fiscal statu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iry of period of one year, registered lease deed was executed for the eight years with effect from May 1, 1989. Further the court construing the provision liberally, held that it cannot be a ground for rejection of the claim petition under section 4-A. Coming to the facts of the present case we find that the rejection of the review petition was on two grounds-firstly there was no partition inter se between the owners of the land and secondly the petitioner has not filed any lease deed. So far as the first ground is concerned the word used in explanation (1)(c) to section 4-A is "owned". It is not in dispute that at least two partners are the joint owners of the land on which the unit is established. Challenge to the ownership could only b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a lease deed. There could be no question of filing a lease deed where the co-owners or the joint owners in which other co-owners disclaim their right to the extent on which the unit is established in favour of the partners of the firm. Hence both the grounds are not sustainable. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the provision of section 4-A we find that the rejection of the application of the petitioners under section 4-A on these grounds is not sustainable. In spite of the petitioners having referred to the circular of the Government including the decision of this Court earlier in the review application no reference has been made in the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order dated January 13, 199 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates