9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ENDRA MENON J. Challenging the order passed by the appellate authority refusing to grant exemption in the matter of payment of tax vide annexure P16 dated September 22, 1995, the petitioner has filed this petition. The petitioner claims to be a small-scale industry engaged in cutting and polishing of stones. The industrial unit of the petitioner is situated in the District of Satna and the competent authorities have declared the petitioner's unit to be a small-scale industry and the petitioner has obtained registration in this regard vide annexure P1, from the Industries Department. The petitioner is also holding a registration certificate under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. According to the petitioner, the petitioner started production in the industrial unit with effect from February 13, 1989. Section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 empowers the State Government to grant exemption to dealers of goods from payment of tax or to grant benefit of deferment in payment of tax. In pursuance to the aforesaid power vested, the State Government has issued a notification on October 23, 1981, as contained in an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were directed to consider the claim of the petitioner on merit and decide it in accordance with law. It is the case of the petitioner that after remand of the matter the matter was reconsidered and vide annexure P14, the petitioner was communicated the decision of the competent authority to the effect that the petitioner has been granted exemption under the 1986 Scheme. The petitioner was directed to appear and enter into the agreement in pursuance of the aforesaid. This decision taken in the meeting dated July 29, 1993 was communicated to the petitioner. Inter alia, claiming that the petitioner is claiming exemption under the 1981 Scheme and in granting exemption under the 1986 Scheme, respondents have committed error, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Level Committee vide annexure P15, on October 4, 1993, and by order dated September 22, 1995 (annexure P16), the State Level Committee has dismissed the appeal holding that the District Level Committee has correctly given benefit to the petitioner under the 1986 Scheme. The petitioner applied for grant of exemption for the first time in May 1989 and as the petitioner wanted change of his option, then he should ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. All the three notifications which are relevant for deciding the present case, i.e., the first notification dated October 23, 1981, the second notification dated October 16, 1986 and the third notification dated March 3, 1989 clarifying the notification dated October 16, 1989, have been produced for the perusal of this court. The first ground raised by Shri R.K. Samaiya to the effect that after the judgment of the Division Bench in writ petition M.P. No. 910 of 1992, the respondents are duty-bound to grant exemption is not correct. In the said writ petition, the only question decided was that cutting and polishing of stones amounts to manufacturing process on the basis of decisions rendered by the apex court and, therefore, the respondents were directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of eligibility certificate in accordance with law. That being so, the contention of the petitioner to the effect that after decision of the Division Bench, the application could not be rejected is wholly misconceived. A perusal of the notification issued on October 23, 1981 indicates that State Government has ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e earlier petition filed by the petitioner also, as is evident from the copy of the writ petition (annexure P11), it is seen that the petitioner was seeking exemption under the old 1981 Scheme and his prayer was to consider his application for grant of exemption under this Scheme. When the matter is considered after remand and in the communication made to the State Level Committee vide annexure P15 also, the petitioner has clearly stated these facts. In spite thereof, in the impugned order (annexure P16) dated September 22, 1995, his application for grant of exemption under the 1981 Scheme is rejected in view of the stipulation contained in clause (12) of the notification dated March 3, 1989 containing the limitation of 90 days. It is, therefore, clear that even though the second notification was issued on October 16, 1986, right of the petitioner to claim exemption under the earlier 1981 Scheme subsisted and petitioner was insisting upon grant of benefit under this Scheme. However, this benefit is denied to the petitioner only on the ground that he has not submitted option within 90 days, as stipulated under clause (12) of the notification dated March 3, 1989. That being so it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
