Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2004 (8) TMI 665

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... agar District which area is covered by the aforesaid scheme. The scheme came into operation from August 16, 1995 and remained in force up to August 15, 2000. There is no dispute about the fact that the plant was set up during the operation period of the scheme and the commercial production commenced on January 20, 1999. There is also no dispute about the petitioner's case that it is an eligible unit under the scheme. The petitioner had claimed the incentives under the scheme in respect of the following fixed capital investments: (i) Land acquired by the petitioner on July 4, 1994 at a cost of Rs. 8,25,448. Oral (ii) New building at a cost of Rs. 15,95,644 for which the petitioner had given the construction contract on July 1, 19 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e the construction contract for the building was entered into on July 1, 1995, i.e., before the date of commencement of the Scheme, the petitioner is not eligible to get any incentive in respect of the building also. 4.. At the hearing of the petition, Mr. Rashesh S. Sanjanwala, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that since the plant and machinery was taken delivery of, and installed, by the petitioner at its factory site, merely because the initial orders for the plant and machinery were placed by Asiatic Steel Industries Ltd., and part payment was made by Asiatic Steel Industries Ltd., it cannot be said that the plant and machinery installed by the petitioner at its factory was not new. It is the specific case of the petitioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... titioner's case that the plant and machinery was delivered by the manufacturer at the petitioner's premises and was for the first time installed and used by the petitioner certainly deserves to be looked into by the State Level Committee, if the petitioner produces the documents in support of its case. 6.. As far as the building is concerned, it is the petitioner's case that although the construction contract was entered into on July 1, 1995 the contract was executed for a period over four years and, therefore, the contract was substantially executed during the period of operation of the scheme between August 16, 1995 and the year 1999 and the payment for the said construction was also made by the petitioner over a period of four years. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n contract was entered into by the petitioner on July 1, 1995, i.e., before the date of commencement of the scheme. When the building contract worth about Rs. 15 lakhs was executed over a period of four years, it would appear that substantial part of the contract was executed after the date of the commencement of the scheme and, therefore, this claim of the petitioner is also required to be considered by the State Level Committee without being obsessed by the date of execution of the construction contract. 7.. As far as the land is concerned, according to the petitioner, the land can never be new and, therefore, any land acquired at any point of time prior to the date of commencement of the scheme would still form part of the eligible fix .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... under: "After going into commercial production in January, 1999 as per the data given by petitioner the unit remained non-operative during July, 2000 to August, 2001, 13 months. Again since February, 2004 the unit is out of operation till April, 2004." 10.. Mr. Sanjanwala for the petitioner, however, submits that sales tax incentives are required to be computed on the basis of the investments made by the petitioner and the subsequent developments about any break in production cannot have a bearing on the decision whether the petitioner was eligible for incentives under the Scheme or not. In any view of the matter, Mr. Sanjanwala states that the petitioner was not in a position to operate the industry for a few months for which the petit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates