9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held liable for payment of entry tax for which, there was no power with the State Government to withdraw such exemption with retrospective effect. Petition is allowed. Notification (annexure P/1) in so far as it relates to the petitioner only restricting the exemption of notification (annexure P/5) till 31st of March, 2004 is not sustainable under the law and is hereby quashed. The petitioner who was extended the benefit of exemption from payment of entry tax till 31st of March, 2007 vide notification (annexure P/5) shall be entitled to get the aforesaid exemption. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... granted to crude edible oil from payment of entry tax between 1st of October, 1997 and 31st of March, 2004, so it does not have any effect on annexure P/5 and cannot be quashed mainly on the ground that under annexure P/1, the petitioner is liable to make payment of entry tax from 1st of April, 2004. It was submitted by Shri Jaideep Singh that nowhere annexure P/1 says that by this earlier notification, annexure P/5 was withdrawn or modified, in absence of which, annexure P/1 dated April 13, 2007 cannot be quashed. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate if the factual position of the case is stated. The petitioner is a manufacturer of vegetable and edible oil. The petitioner is required crude edible oi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of yarn including blended yarn or staple yarn, but excluding sewing thread, (ii) Hydrogenated vegetable oil, (iii) Vegetable and edible oil, (iv) Ceramic tiles. 2. The goods manufactured are sold in the State of Madhya Pradesh or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of export out of the territory of India." To understand the complete effect of annexure P/5, it would be appropriate if relevant provision, as contained in section 2(r) of the M.P. Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 is also referred which reads thus: "2(r). Raw material means an article used as an ingredient in any manufactured goods, or an article consumed in the process of manufacture and includes fuel and lubricants required for the process o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of March, 2007 was restricted up to 31st of March, 2004, and the petitioner was liable to make payment of entry tax from 1st of April, 2004 till 31st of March, 2007. The contention of the petitioner is that when the State Government had granted exemption to the petitioner under section 10 of the Entry Tax Act till 31st of March, 2007 then such exemption could not have been restricted vide another notification dated 12th of April, 2007 till 31st of March, 2004, that too with retrospective effect. Reliance is placed by the petitioner to a judgment of the apex court in State of U.P. v. Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemical Corporation Ltd. [2007] 7 VST 535 (SC); AIR 2007 SC 2123 and submitted that such notification may be quashed. Section 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by another notification dated March 31, 2006 up to 31st of March, 2007. On issuance of such a notification, a manufacturer could very well assess his liability in respect of payment of entry tax and could have assessed the cost for manufacturing of the goods, and during the period when the aforesaid notification remains in vogue, the petitioner could not have included entry tax to ascertain the cost of finished goods, meaning thereby, for assessing cost of manufactured goods, the entry tax part could not have been taken into consideration. The apex court in State of U.P. v. Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemical Corporation Ltd. [2007] 7 VST 535 (SC); AIR 2007 SC 2123, considering the similar position, held thus (pages 539 and 540 in 7 VST): ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fect. If an exemption was granted by the State Government by issuing continuous two notifications, then the aforesaid exemption could not have been withdrawn by the State Government vide annexure P/1 with retrospective effect. Issuance of Notification (annexure P/1) is having far reaching consequences on the petitioner, and in such a situation, the State Government could not have withdrawn such exemption with retrospective effect. In the result, this petition is allowed. notification (annexure P/1) in so far as it relates to the petitioner only restricting the exemption of notification (annexure P/5) till 31st of March, 2004 is not sustainable under the law and is hereby quashed. The petitioner who was extended the benefit of exemption fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
