1994 (7) TMI 331

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... exemption which according to the petitioner is from the date of first sale, i.e., July 3, 1985. The brief facts in this case are that the petitioner earlier applied for granting of eligibility certificate under section 4A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The claim of the petitioner is that it was entitled for the grant of said exemption for a period of five years and the Divisional Level Committee without making any proper enquiry granted the said exemption for a period of three years with effect from December 31, 1984, whereas according to the petitioner the date of first sale was July 3, 1985. Thus the petitioner claims it was entitled to exemption from July 3, 1985. The contention of the petitioner is that the finding to the effect t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ting date from which manufacturing of diesel engine started. This date was treated to be the date of starting production. It has further recorded a finding that till the aforesaid date since the petitioner had only invested Rs. 74,763.31 hence it is not entitled for exemption for a period of five years. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged this finding that this date (i.e., March 9, 1985) of starting production recorded is illegal. It was never the case of the respondents treating this to be the date of starting production. The stand taken in the original order was that the date of starting production was the date on which electricity was given to the petitioner, i.e., on December 31, 1984. The petitioner has come with the case t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce from March 9, 1985, it started some subassembly work of diesel engine but no final production was done and the final production was done only on July 2, 1985. The question raised on behalf of the respondents is that in case production started irrespective of the electricity supply of 35 h.p. then there is nothing wrong in recording a finding as March 9, 1985 to be the date of starting production. As we observed above, we feel it proper to send the case back to respondent No. 2 to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioner regarding the finding recorded by respondent No. 2. Since the said finding recorded by respondent No. 2 being on a new point not recorded earlier, we feel that the impugned order dated Janua .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X