9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the manufacture of marble slabs and units engaged therein had been keep out of the purview of exemption, be quashed and set aside and it may be held that the petitioner is entitled to exemption from sales tax up to the extent of annual turnover of Rs. 30 lakhs under the notification, annexure 1, dated March 27, 1995 from March 10, 2003. 2.. The case of the petitioner-firm as put forward by it in this writ petition is as follows: The case of the petitioner-firm is that in order to promote khadi and village industries, the Union of India has enacted Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956") and similarly, the State Government enacted Rajasthan Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es tax up to the turnover of Rs. 30 lakhs under the notification annexure 1 dated March 27, 1995 and a copy of the said application along with the project report is marked as annexure 5. The further case of the petitioner-firm is that the KVIC through letter dated August 28, 2003 (annexure 7) granted the registration to the petitioner-firm as KVIC unit with effect from March 10, 2003 for a period of three years up to March 9, 2006 and thus, for all purposes, the petitioner-firm is a KVIC unit and entitled to avail all benefits available to such unit with effect from March 10, 2003, in terms of notification, annexure 1, dated March 27, 1995. The further case of the petitioner-firm is that the State Government issued notification date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, annexure 10, dated October 8, 2003 has been challenged by the petitioner-firm in this petition mainly on two grounds: (i) That the impugned order, annexure 10, dated October 8, 2003 issued by the respondent No. 2 Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer is illegal, arbitrary and against the statutory notifications, annexure 1, dated March 27, 1995 and annexure 8 dated May 22, 2003 granting exemption from sales tax to the petitioner-firm, which was duly registered as KVIC unit with effect from March 10, 2003 as is evident from annexure 7 and therefore, the impugned order, annexure 10, deserves to be quashed and set aside being violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. (ii) That the impugned order, annexure 10, dated October 8, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... serves to be dismissed. 3.. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record. 4.. There is no dispute on the point that through letter, annexure 7, dated August 28, 2003 the KVIC granted registration to the petitioner-firm as KVIC unit with effect from March 10, 2003 for a period of three years up to March 9, 2006 and thus, the petitionerfirm is entitled to benefits available to such unit from March 10, 2003. 5.. There is also no dispute on the point that through notification, annexure 1, dated March 27, 1995 exemption from sales tax up to the annual turnover of Rs. 30 lakhs was granted. 6.. There is also no dispute on the point that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2003 the petitioner-firm was availing the benefit in view of the notification, annexure 1, dated March 27, 1995 with effect from March 10, 2003 the date of its registration as KVIC unit or not or whether before issuing the impugned order, annexure 10, dated October 8, 2003 the petitioner-firm was given opportunity of hearing or not. 9.. In my considered opinion, in this writ petition, the basic question is whether before issuance of notification, annexure 8, dated May 22, 2003 the petitioner-firm was availing the benefit under the notification, annexure 1, dated March 27, 1995 with effect from March 10, 2003 the date of its registration as KVIC unit or not and such question cannot be answered straightway in the writ petition, especially ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was given to the petitioner-firm though through letter, annexure 9, dated September 8, 2003 the petitionerfirm made a request that its unit was exempt from sales tax with effect from March 10, 2003 as its unit was registered as KVIC unit with effect from March 10, 2003 through letter, annexure 7, dated August 28, 2003. Furthermore, the impugned order, annexure 10, simply says that because of the notifications dated March 27, 1995 (annexure 1) and May 22, 2003 (annexure 8) issued by the State Government, the manufacture of marble slabs and units engaged therein had been kept out of the purview of exemption and it nowhere states in specific terms that the petitioner-firm was not entitled to the benefit of exemption. 12.. Thus, it appears th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
