9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1954. 2. The petitioner-company, upon making eligible investment within the State of Rajasthan was given the requisite Eligibility Certificate under the said Incentive Scheme, 1987 vide Annex.P/3 for the period 20.01.1998 to 20.01.2005 for the eligible investment to the extent of Rs. 390.28 lacs. The petitioner availed the said benefit of exemption from the sales tax under the said Incentive Scheme in pursuance of the said Eligibility Certificate granted to it in the contemporary period between 21.01.1998 to 20.01.2005. 3. Thereafter the petitioner company unfortunately turned sick and was registered with the BIFR under the provisions of Sick Industrial Application (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and a scheme of rehabilitation was f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1987 vide prayer Clause No. (b) made in the writ petition since he has already made a prayer in the alternative in prayer Clause No. (c) that the Condition No.4(e) deserves to be interpreted in the manner that it was only effective for the period of the scheme itself. 6. He further submitted that the Scheme does not restrict prohibit the extent of branch transfers or sales outside the State of Rajasthan of more than 20% of its production beyond the period of scheme itself. Admittedly, the Incentive Scheme, 1987, had the operative period up to 31.03.1997. He also urged that in the rehabilitation scheme framed by the BIFR under the provisions of SICA Act, 1985, the State Government has, inter-alia also undertaken to exempt the petitioner com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner has approached to this Court under writ jurisdiction, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the learned counsels for the parties and scanned the material placed on record and the statutes including the Incentive Scheme, 1987. 9. The said Incentive Scheme, 1987, under the provisions of Section 4 of the RST Act, 1954, which Act now stands repealed and replaced by Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, which also got repealed and replaced by the Rajasthan VAT Act, 2003, exempted, inter-alia, industrial units from payment of tax on the sales from goods manufactured by them within the State to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l unit in question to maintain the average production, so that the industrial investment does not go waste and the average production brings consequential revenue for the State and secondly restricting the branch transfers for making sales outside the State would yield a minimum assured revenue for the State of Rajasthan, if remaining remaining 80% sales are made within the State, such due sales tax on 80% sales was only to be set off against the quantum of incentive determined on the basis of eligible investment made by the assessee. It is also noteworthy that Clause (i) of sub-clause (e) of Clause 4 came to be deleted by the Notification No.F.12 (12) FD/Tax/07-09 dated 11.04.2007, after the Rajasthan VAT Act, 2003, came into force, howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itself. The scheme was in force for approximately ten years from 31.03.1987 to 31.03.1997 and after its initial period ended on 31.03.1995, it was extended for two years up to 31.03.1997. The State also came out with another incentive scheme known as Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1989, also the operative period of which was was 05.03.1987 to 3103.1998. 12. Since the goods are obviously sold upon its production during the contemporary period only, the restriction under Clause (ii) of Clause 4 (e) can be held to be operative only for the period of eligibility certificate itself and not beyond that. The initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner company in the present case is apparently based on a foundation, which was not available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R. 15. In this perspective, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Revenue, Mr. V.K. Mathur, about the availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner company is not acceptable and the same deserves to be rejected. Moreover, since the highest authority under the Act of the Department side, the Additional Commissioner had passed the impugned order; the availing of remedy by way of appeal before a lower authority than him against the impugned assessment order would have been meaningless even otherwise. 16. This is besides the legal position that availability of alternative remedy is not a bar of jurisdiction but a rule of discretion while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
