9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (10) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il Nadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra [1976] 37 STC 319 held that the raw materials and the end-products are commercially different commodities and accordingly both are taxable. That judgment of the Supreme Court reversed the decision of this Court taking a contrary view reported in the case of Pyare lal Malhotra v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer [1970] 26 STC 416. 3.. It is not in dispute that the State though it had power to tax both the raw material and the end-products, had by Notification No. 49/82 dated March 24, 1982 exempted the end-products manufactured by the rolling mills provided tax had been paid on the raw materials purchased by the said rolling mills. The exemption so granted continued in force till March 17, 1986, on which date G.O. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... placed by the petitioners on the doctrine of promissory estoppel to contend that the State is estopped from levying tax on the end-products which had been manufactured out of the raw materials on which tax had been paid already. The contention is that placing reliance on the notification dated March 24, 1982, the petitioners had purchased the raw materials on the basis that the end-products made out of such raw materials would be exempted from tax and therefore, the State has no power to demand tax on the end-products by withdrawing the exemption granted earlier in respect of the sale of the end-product and giving benefit of such exemption to the raw materials purchased by the rolling mills as has been done under the notification dated Marc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted under the earlier notification dated March 24, 1982, in respect of the tax payable on the sale of the end-products and made such end-products subject to tax on and after the date of the notification on March 17, 1986 but however while making the end-products taxable, the State exempted the raw materials purchased by the rolling mills. 9.. No promise had been held out to the petitioners by the notification dated March 24, 1982 that the exemption of tax on the end-products would continue for ever. Exemption was till such time as the State chose to withdraw it. The State having decided to make such end-product taxable from March 17, 1986, sale of end-products falling within the item 4 of the Second Schedule of the Act will become taxable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uiry as to whether the end-products sold on or after that date of notification were manufactured out of the raw materials on which tax had been paid or as to whether the rolling mills had availed the benefit of exemption of sales tax on the purchase of the raw materials. 12.. Learned counsel for the respondent/State also pointed out that the assessment for the period in question had been made by the authorities on the petitioners several years back and that unless such assessment orders are set aside in a properly instituted proceedings, the petitioners are liable to pay the tax so assessed. The fact that assessments have already been made, is not in dispute. 13.. I do not see any merit in these writ petitions and the same are dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
