9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch case). Their particulars are as follows: S. No. Writ Petition No. RST or CST Period Date of assessment Amount levied Remarks (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 1. 3136/92 RST CST 1.1.1992 to 31.3.1992 11.5.1992 4,46,262 1,15,933 2. 1124/92 RST 1.4.1991 to 30.9.1991 11.2.1992 18, 62,682 3. 1259/92 RST 1.10.1991 to 31.12.1991 11.2.1992 3,61,654 4. 5088/92 RST 1.4.1988 to 31.3.1989 29.8.1992 9,12,453 5. 5865/93 RST 1.4.1990 to 31.6.1991 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ders and demand notices are illegal. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said notification dated January 11, 1990 (annexure 1) is illegal, exemption from payment of tax granted earlier could not be withdrawn with retrospective effect, the provisions of section 4(2) of the RST Act and section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, "the CST Act") did not empower the State Government to withdraw the exemption with retrospective effect, the petitioner did not recover any sales tax from its customers during the aforesaid periods and in pursuance of the assessment orders the petitioner has been made liable to pay the aforesaid huge amounts. He further contended that under section 4(2) of the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red to collect from his customers and deposit the same in the Government treasury. As a consequence of the said notification annexure 1, the petitioner has been made liable for the payment of huge amount without charging a single paisa from its customers. Exemption can well be granted with retrospective effect as it does not adversely affect either a customer or a dealer. In case of grant of exemption with retrospective effect, the tax collected by the dealer had stood deposited in Government treasury. 7.. It has been held in State of Madhya Pradesh v. G.S. Dal and Flour Mills [1991] 80 STC 138 (SC) at page 165, that subsequent notification cannot take away with retrospective effect exemption granted by an earlier notification. The afor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to a ceiling of 100 per cent of investment in fixed capital or seven years whichever was earlier. The promise made by the non-applicants was not in conflict with law or contrary to public policy. It was acted upon in good time by the applicant. The essential ingredients of promissory estoppel exist. This promise cannot be broken and has to be kept. The State Government is free to alter the Incentive Schemes but that would only be with prospective effect for those who respond to the modified schemes." As such it is very difficult to sustain the notification dated January 11, 1990 (annexure 1) so far its operation with retrospective effect is concerned. Its prospective operation will remain unaffected. It will be effective so far the indust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
