9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (6) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Companies Act, 1956. The second petitioner is a director of the first petitioner-company. The first respondent is an undertaking of the Maharashtra Government formed for helping the industries in the State of Maharashtra. The second respondent is the Commissioner of Sales Tax under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The third respondent is the State of Maharashtra responsible for administering the sales tax laws in the State of Maharashtra. 3.. With a view to achieve development and dispersal of industries outside the Bombay/Thane/Pune Belt, the third respondent by several Government Resolutions evolved schemes to give sales tax incentives for those industries which were then coming up in the backward areas as more ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the second respondent till such entitlement was cancelled or revoked or the exemption benefits were exhausted in terms of para 1 of the said eligibility certificate, that is, till the sales tax liability of the first petitioner exceeded Rs. 54,62,100. Pursuant to the said eligibility certificate, the second respondent issued the certificate of entitlement No. N-30-E/136 LM/59 dated 16th March, 1984 having the validity for the period from 19th March, 1984 to 18th March, 1991 with the condition that the same was liable to be cancelled with effect from the date of cancellation of the said eligibility certificate issued by the first respondent. 4.. In terms of the said entitlement certificate the first petitioner became entitled to claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8,05,087 being the amount of excess benefit allegedly enjoyed by the first petitioner along with interest thereon to be calculated at the rate of 15.5 per cent per annum within the period stipulated therein. The petitioners were threatened that if the said amount would not be paid, it would be recovered from the first petitioner as arrears of land revenue. Correspondence thereafter ensued and representations in the matter were also made by the petitioners. In view of coercive attitude of the first respondent, the first petitioner did pay sums aggregating to Rs. 2,20,000 to the first respondent against the demand made by the first respondent. 5.. The Sales Tax Officer, Ratnagiri, having jurisdiction over the factory of the first petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 846 and not to the extent of Rs. 43,84,880 as determined by the Sales Tax Officer. Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has fairly stated that the petitioners are not challenging the determination of the notional sales tax liability of the first petitioner as made by the Sales Tax Officer for the relevant period at Rs. 43,84,880 in relation to the 1979 Package Scheme. 7.. Though the action of the first respondent in making the demand upon the first petitioner has been challenged in this petition and the first respondent is a party in the petition, the first respondent has not chosen either to remain present before this Court or file any affidavit in reply to controvert or deny any of the statements made by the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1959 on the sales of finished products of the first petitioner; and (iii) Central sales tax payable under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on the sales of finished products the first petitioner effected in the course of interState trade or commerce. 10.. The resolution of the Government to grant exemption of sales tax liability has been given effect to by making a necessary statutory provisions in the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 under the powers vested in the State Government under section 41 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. For this purpose, the Government has amended the notification dated 28th December, 1959, issued under section 41 and inserted entry 136 which provided for exemption of- (a) Whole of sales tax payable on the sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1959 and the Rules made thereunder. The sales tax/ purchase tax payable or paid by a manufacturer in respect of his raw material stood effectively reduced to only 4 per cent by virtue of the set-off provisions under rule 41D of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 and as such the effective maximum rate of tax borne on the purchase of raw material used in the manufacture of finished goods by the first petitioner was thus only at 4 per cent and not 10 per cent as determined by the first respondent and as such, the notional sales tax liability in respect of purchases of raw material by the first petitioner ought to have been quantified at 4 per cent only as that was the maximum rate of purchase tax payable by the first petitioner under the local ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
