9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Zone-II of the notification issued by the State Government. A reference to the notification will be made at the appropriate stage. 4.. Before establishing its manufacturing unit at Somanahalli, Maddur Taluk, the petitioner-company had approached the State Government for grant of incentive and exemption under the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 and also under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. Pursuant to the request so made, the State Government had issued a Notification/Government Order in No. CI.92.SPI.1997 dated June 25, 1997, inter alia, granting exemption from payment of entry tax on raw materials and component parts for a period of six years from the date of commencement of commercial production. In the notification/Government order, it was made clear that the petitioner-company should make an investment of a sum of Rs. 111 crores, to claim benefit under the notification dated June 25, 1997. 5.. After obtaining the said exemption from the State Government, the petitioner-company has established its manufacturing unit at Somanahalli, Maddur Taluk. But for various reasons, the petitioner-company could not make investment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and they were registered as STA Nos. 571 of 2001, 709, 329 and 330 of 2003. The Tribunal by its common order dated January 23, 2004 had allowed STA No. 571 of 2001, and had partly allowed STA No. 709 of 2003 and had rejected STA Nos. 329 and 330 of 2003 for the assessment years 1997-1998, 1998-1999 and 2000-2001. In its order, the Tribunal has concluded that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. FD 11 CET 93(III) dated March 31, 1993; insertion of clause (g) to the Explanation to KST Notification No. FD 239 CSL 90(I) dated June 19, 1991 will apply to Notification No. FD 11 CET 93(III) dated March 31, 1993; no penalty can be imposed under section 5(5) of the Act on the assessee-company for the relevant assessment years. 10.. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, is before this Court in these revision petitions filed under section 15-A of the Act, on the ground that the Appellate Tribunal has erroneously decided the questions of law raised and canvassed before them. 11.. The questions of law raised for our consideration and decision in these revision pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat is beneficial to the assessee requires to be considered and adopted and benefit should be given to the assessee. In support of these contentions, the learned Senior Counsel has relied on the observations made by the apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Madhavrao Damodar Patil AIR 1968 SC 1395, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India (1979) 2 SCC 529 and Gauri Shankar Gaur v. State of U.P. (1994) 1 SCC 92. 13.. While submitting that, if two views are possible, the one view which is beneficial to the assessee requires to be adopted, the learned Senior Counsel relies on the observation made by the apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Onkar S. Kanwar (2002) 7 SCC 591. These are the only submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel in aid of the relief sought in these revision petitions. 14.. Per contra, Sri Anand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Revenue would contend that, the notification issued by the State Government under the provisions of the Entry Tax Act dated March 31, 1993, makes a reference to the conditions and procedures prescribed in the Notification No. FD 239 CSL 90(I) dated June 19, 1991 issued under section 8-A of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State Government has inserted clause (g) after clause (f) of the notification dated June 19, 1991. The said clause is as under: "(g) to tiny/small-scale industrial units whose investment in fixed assets has taken place on or after 12th July, 1993 and to medium/ large scale industrial units which are in the process of establishment and have not opted for availing concessions under this notification before 30th September, 1993." A reading of the aforesaid clause would clearly indicate that the industrial units falling under clause (g) of the notification dated August 28, 1993 are also ineligible for exemption under the notification dated June 19, 1991. 18.. The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it under section 11-A of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979, has issued Notification No. FD 11 CET 93(iii) dated March 31, 1993 exempting with effect from April 1, 1993, the tax payable under the provisions of the Entry Tax Act on the entry of raw materials, component parts and inputs and machinery into a local area for the use in the manufacture of an intermediate or finished product by the new industrial units mentioned in column No. 2 and located in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... different intention clearly appears, section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act would apply and the reference would be construed as a reference to the provision as may be in force from time to time in the former statute. But if a provision of one statute is incorporated in another, any subsequent amendment in the former statute or even its total repeal would not affect the provision as incorporated in the later statute. 21.. Now the question before us is to find out to which category the present case belongs to? 22.. The facts are not in dispute before us. The questions that require to be considered and decided by this Court are, whether the Explanation appended to the notification issued by the State Government under the provisions of the Entry Tax Act is legislation by incorporation or legislation by citation? And whether the authorities under the Act and the Tribunal were justified in concluding that in view of insertion of clause (g) in the notification dated June 19, 1991 by notification dated August 28, 1993 with effect from September 23, 1993 the petitioner-company is disentitled to claim benefit under the Notification No. FD 11 CET 93(iii) dated March 31, 1993 issued under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nless expressly made applicable to the subsequent Act, be deemed to be incorporated in it. The later Act is totally unaffected by any amendment or repeal. It would be subject to the exceptions enumerated hereinbefore. The statute being distinct and different each is to be judged with reference to its own source that emerges from its scheme, language employed and purpose it seeks to achieve. 32.. If a later Act merely makes a reference to the earlier Act or existing law, it is only by way of reference and all amendments, repeals, new law subsequently made will have effect unless its operation is saved by section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act or void under article 254 of the Constitution." 26.. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sant Joginder Singh Kishan Singh AIR 1995 SC 2181, has observed that "the legislation by reference is different from the legislation by incorporation. If the State Legislature adopts the Central Act, then amendments made subsequently to the Central Act becomes applicable and that does not happen when legislation is by incorporation of specific provisions of the Central Act". 27.. In the present case, the State Government while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
