9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 1267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limited company engaged in the business of manufacture of two wheeler scooters in their factory at Pithampur area in District Dhar. 3.. By order dated October 5, 1987 (annexure A) the petitioner was granted sales tax exemption, i.e., exemption from payment of State sales tax and purchase tax for a period of five years, i.e., upto April 9, 1991 to be counted from the date of commencement of the production, i.e., on April 10, 1986. However, by order dated June 14, 1989 (annexure B), the period of five years exemption originally granted to the petitioner was extended for a total period of nine years, i.e., up to April 9, 1995 in place of April 9, 1991. 4.. On March 3, 1989 (annexure C) the State in exercise of powers conferred under secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposing certain conditions in the exemption which was not originally specified in exemption. In other words, by the impugned decision, the exemption already granted was made conditional on petitioner's fulfilling certain conditions. It was said that if petitioner fulfill these conditions then only the petitioner will be entitled to claim the exemption else not. It was also said that in view of this decision taken, the benefit granted to petitioner earlier as per earlier 1981 notification is recalled and petitioner is asked to deposit the tax not paid by them so far. It is this decision/ order which is impugned in this writ by the petitioner. 6.. The State has filed the return and supported the impugned decision to be in conformity with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... now after the expiry of entire period, its retrospective withdrawal is just not legal and deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Birla Jute and Industries Ltd. v. State of M.P. [2000] 119 STC 14. 9.. In reply learned counsel for the State defended the impugned decision contending that the same has been taken in the interest of State and do not require any change or/and interference. 10.. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case I am inclined to allow the writ and quash the impugned decision contained in letter dated May 31, 1994 (annexure F). 11.. Indeed, in my considered view the issue involved in this writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1, 1994, i.e., almost seven years from first exemption and four years after second exemption. It is not permissible. It has to be set aside on this short ground alone. It is apart from the fact that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner as to why and on what basis, the exemption already granted by the competent authority and which was availed of by the petitioner is being withdrawn and that too by taking up the issue suo motu by the State without there being any reason. It is not in dispute nor it has ever been the case of State that while granting the exemptions it has any element of fraud or/and forgery attributable to the petitioner. 13.. Consequently and as a result of aforesaid discussion, the petition succeeds and is allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
