9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... April and May, 1983, the petitioner purchases goods worth Rs. 1,20,000 (approximately). However, it did not file return as required by the provisions of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short, "the Act") read with the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (for short, "the Rules"). This led to the issuance of notices dated May 7, 1984 and May 10, 1984 by deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Assessing Authority, Jind. On receipt of the two notices, the petitioners partner submitted representation annexure P2 dated May 21, 1984 to justify non-filing of return and payment of tax by claiming that it was entitled to the benefit of policy announcement made by the Industries Department of the Government of Haryana for deferment of payment of purchase/ sales tax for a period of five years. The assessing authority rejected the representation of the petitioner and issued notice annexure P3 dated June 4, 1984 requiring it to deposit the amount of tax due with a stipulation that failure to do so would lead to initiation of proceedings under section 47 of the Act. He also issued show cause notice annexure P4 dated July 11, 1984 proposing levy of penalty on account of non-pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 581 of 1984. C.W.P. No. 1319 of 1985: 7.. Petitioner M/s. Jagdamba Rice and General Mills has referred to the clause relating to special sales tax incentives enshrined in the package of incentives announced by the State Government and averred that the action initiated by the assessing authority for levy of tax is per se illegal and violative of its fundamental right guaranteed under article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. In paragraphs 10 to 12, the petitioner has made the following averments to show that it has set up the industry with a view to avail the sales tax incentives and that its unit had come into production on November 1, 1983: "10. That the petitioner-Mill came into production on November 1, 1983. 11.. That the petitioner has spent huge amount in commissioning the project and the total investment of the petitioner towards the fixed assets is nearly 11 lakhs rupees. 12.. That the petitioner planned his operation and working of the Mill for whole of the season. On the estimated basis, the petitioner prepared financial scheme regarding the quantity of paddy to be purchased, supplies of rice to the Food and Supplies Department under levy scheme, return of mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... argued that even though section 25A was added to the Act in April, 1984, the respondents should be held bound by the promise made to the prospective entrepreneurs to give incentives in terms of the policy contained in annexure P1. 13.. Shri Jaswant Singh, Senior Deputy Advocate General argued that the policy announcement made by the industries department cannot be construed as a binding promise made by the State Government to the prospective industries to give relief by way of deferment of the payment of sales tax because there was no provision in the Act under which the payment of sales tax could be deferred. He pointed out that section 25A was added in the Act vide Gazette dated April 18, 1984, but corresponding provisions were made in the Rules by adding rules 17-A to 17-R vide notification dated May 9, 1986 and argued that the petitioners cannot seek a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to defer the collection of sales tax for a period of five years, w.e.f. November 1, 1983 because the amendments made in the Act and the Rule are not retrospective. He further argued that the package of Incentives contained in annexure P1 cannot be made basis for compelling the State G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection in that respect. 16.. I am further of the view that in the absence of proper legislative measure in the form of amendment of the Act, the Government could not have given benefit of sales tax deferment to the petitioners and the court cannot command the respondents to withhold the recovery of the sales tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 17.. The plea of estoppel raised by the petitioners deserves to be rejected because they have not placed any material on record to substantiate the assertion that they had set up their units keeping in view the promise made by the State Government to give incentives including the one by way of deferment of the payment of sales tax. The bald averments contained in the writ petitions are too vague to be relied upon for recording a finding that they were allured by the incentives specified in annexure P1 and had set up units only on the account. That apart, I am firmly of the view that no amount of promise made by the executive authorities of the Government to give benefit in the matter of exemption from or deferment of payment of sales tax to the petitioners in violation of the statutory provisions can be enforced by issuing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
