9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit of incentives offered by the Government of Punjab under the Package of incentives, 1992, the petitioner set up a milk processing plant at phase VIII, Focal Point, Ludhiana, in 1995. After commencement of commercial production, it applied for exemption from payment of tax in terms of Package of Incentives, 1992. General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ludhiana issued eligibility certificate, annexure P.2 dated September 3, 1996, entitling the petitioner to get tax exemption for a period of 7 years commencing from September 3, 1995 with a maximum limit of Rs. 2,23,99,281. This was reflected in the order of assessment dated August 27, 2001 (annexure P.3) passed by Assessing Authority, Ludhiana. 3.. During the currency of the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l and pleaded that after having induced it to set up industry by spending huge capital and having granted exemption from payment of tax for a period of 7 years, the State Government and its functionaries cannot indirectly recover the tax in the form of cess. It has averred that the cess leviable under section 12 of the 2000 Act is nothing but purchase tax and in view of the exemption granted in furtherance of the Package of Incentives, 1992, the respondents cannot recover the tax in any form whatsoever. The petitioner has further averred that the impugned recovery is liable to be nullified because before issuing recovery certificate, annexure P.7, respondent No. 2 did not give any notice or opportunity of hearing. 6.. In the written state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therance of eligibility certificate, annexure P.2, or they have started recovery of tax under the 1948 Act. Therefore, we cannot accept the argument of the learned counsel that his client is being forced to pay tax despite the exemption granted by the State Government. 8.. The petitioner's plea that the impugned notices and the recovery certificate should be quashed in view of the judgment of the division Bench in the case of Health-Aid Food Specialist Pvt. Ltd. (2001) 3 PLR 821 is liable to be rejected because operation of the order of the division Bench has been stayed by the Supreme Court and as a consequence thereof, respondent No. 2 is entitled to enforce recovery of the amount due under the 2000 Act. No other point has been argued. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
