9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time gap is so little that the SLSC even doubted about the manipulation of the dates particularly in view of the fact that there was no occasion for the respondents to file an application at DIC, Alwar, when as per counsel for the petitioner-assessing officer, the application was widely known to have been submitted to the SLSC, Jaipur, to avail of benefits as per scheme. It is true that the benefit arising as per the Incentive Scheme for the benefit to the assessees at large and being beneficial, should be granted but in the instant case, the facts have not been clearly stated on record and something more is required to be placed on record by the respondent assessee as both the material facts, which the court wanted to peruse, were not available with either side of the parties - Matter remanded back - Decided partly in favour of Revenue. - S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 863 of 1999 - - - Dated:- 13-9-2013 - RANKA J.K., J. For the Appellant : R.B. Mathur For the Respondents Alkesh Sharma. ORDER:- J.K. RANKA J.- Instant sales tax revision petition is directed against the order dated March 6, 1998, passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (for sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the benefits under the scheme. Accordingly, the case was rejected. Against the said rejection, the respondent-assessee preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Tax Board, who, vide order dated September 6, 1996, set aside the order of the SLSC and directed the SLSC to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the respondent-assessee and to pass a speaking order. 5. In pursuance to the order passed by the Tax Board, the SLSC again granted personal hearing to the director of the unit and it was pleaded by the director of the respondent-company that the date of submission of the application to DIC, Alwar may be treated as application submitted to the SLSC and if the SLSC did not treat the application given to the DIC, Alwar, the delay in submission may be condoned. It was also pleaded that the honourable Chief Minister of Rajasthan, in his budget speech in March, 1995, had declared that such units, which had made substantial investment prior to March 27, 1995, would not be deprived of the benefit of Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, even if they had not started commercial production before March 27, 1995. 6. However, the SLSC was not satisfied and it was observed by it that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt-assessee at DIC, Alwar on March 25, 1995 and at SLSC on May 29, 1995. He submits that the judgment, relied upon by the Tax Board in the case of Lokendra Industries v. State reported in [1993] 89 STC 277 (Raj), has been reversed by a later judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Gopal Oil Mills reported in [1999] 115 STC 25 (SC);. [1999] 4 SCC 368, and in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Mahaveer Oil Industries reported in [1999] 115 STC 29 (SC);. [1999] 4 SCC 357 and, therefore, no case is made out for eligibility of the respondent-assessee for availing of benefits under the Incentive Scheme. He submits that vital and important aspects were ignored by the Tax Board without any material having been brought on record. 9. Accordingly, he submitted that the SLSC was justified in rejecting the claim of the respondent-assessee and the Tax Board was unjustified in brushing aside these relevant considerations and accordingly requested for reversal of the order. 10. Mr. Alkesh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee, on the other hand, submits that the application was submitted in the office of the DIC, Alwar, as the respondent-ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on record, however, copy of this application was also not provided and both the sides showed their inability to place on record copy of the said application. This application dated March 25, 1995 has a great bearing on the facts of the instant case, in as such as the SLSC has alleged that the dates were manipulated on the part of the unit to show the production and submission of the application with a view to take advantage of the benefit under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme as it is claimed that the application was filed at Alwar on March 25, 1995 when the competent authority was SLSC, Jaipur, the production is shown to have started on March 26, 1995 and the budget speech is on March 27, 1995, i.e., the time gap is so little that the SLSC even doubted about the manipulation of the dates particularly in view of the fact that there was no occasion for the respondents to file an application at DIC, Alwar, when as per counsel for the petitioner-assessing officer, the application was widely known to have been submitted to the SLSC, Jaipur, to avail of benefits as per scheme. 13. It is true that the benefit arising as per the Incentive Scheme for the benefit to the assessees at larg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
