9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 815X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to persons like petitioner on the basis of various Government Orders that had been issued from time to time particularly G.O. No. CI 30 SPC 96, dated March 15, 1996 package of incentives and concessions for the years 1996 to 2001; that in terms of the concessions given under this notification for the kind of business that the petitioner is carrying. The petitioner contends that it is entitled for such benefit for a period of six years from the date of production; that the assessing authority has not extended this benefit in view of a subsequent Notification No. CI 30 SPC 96, dated March 15, 1996 package of incentives and concessions for the years 1996 to 2001; which is a notification under section 19C of the Act granting exemption, etc. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion as to the exemption notification issued under section 19C of the Act is not in consonance with the earlier policy statement of the Government and the benefits promised under that, has to be examined. In so far as the incentives provided to new industrial units set up in notified areas and also additional investments in such units are concerned even the policy statement extending sales tax concessions to new units is concerned as indicated in clause (d) of sales tax concession at item 5 of the different items of concessions/benefits, itself indicates the manner in which additional production attributable to additional investment is to be computed, which additional production alone enjoys the tax concession and a reading of the exempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of his submission: 1.. Brooke Bond Lipton India Limited v. State of Karnataka [1998] 109 STC 265 (Karn) 2.. State of Bihar v. Suprabhat Steel Ltd. [1999] 112 STC 258 (SC) 3.. Wipro Infotech Limited v. Additional Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessment-II) [2000] 117 STC 244 (Karn) In Brooke Bond's case [1998] 109 STC 265 (Karn), I notice that the matter had been brought before the High Court through the hierarchy of the authority under the Act. Petitioner wants to by-pass this cause in spite of an enabling provision to file an appeal, wants to approach this court directly. As indicated above, I am not inclined to examine such questions under writ jurisdiction. In the case of State of Bihar v. Suprabhat Ste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
