9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants have approached this court impugning exhibit P8 marked in O.P. No. 17633 of 2005, whereby the exemption from payment of sales tax granted as per exhibit P10 had been cancelled. The learned single Judge did not accept the challenge. Therefore, these appeals. The appellants are manufacturers of bottled drinking water. There were several such units. There was dispute, including up to this c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y tax liability is cast on them retrospectively. It was contended by them before the learned single Judge that exhibit P8 was vitiated on two counts: (1) The statutory provisions empowering such cancellation as contained in sub-section (3) of section 10 of the Act did not confer a power to cancel retrospectively a benefit, which had been granted. The effect of exhibit P8 is to cancel the benefit w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s justified. Going by the impugned notification, exhibit P8, it can be seen that, that notification was issued exercising the statutory power conferred on Government in terms of sub-section (3) of section 10 of the Act. When the Government exercised the power so conferred by the statute, it cannot be made use of beyond the powers so conferred. That position is now trite. Exhibit P10 exemption wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o cancel the exemption notification did not carry with it a power to issue notification retrospectively, exhibit P8 dated April 19, 2005, which cancels the tax exemption for the period from January 1, 1994 to April 9, 2002, casting liability on the appellants and other incumbents to pay tax, is ultra vires the powers conferred under section 10(3) of the Act. On that reason, the impugned judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
