Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (7) TMI 871

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er was rejected even after grant of eligibility certificate granted by the District Level Screening Committee (in short, "the Committee") who granted the benefit under the Rajasthan Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme, 1989. However, this order was challenged before the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal (in short, "the RTT"). Subsequently after abolition of the RTT, the matter stood transferred to this court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that four assessment orders were passed by the assessing officer (in short, "the A.O.") and all the four orders were challenged before this court. He submitted that this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5739 of 2001 (Ramgarh Silica Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur v. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... allowed and stand of the A.O. in the light of the judgment of the apex court is bad. Accordingly, he prays for quashing of the assessment order. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that according to his information judgments of two connected writ petitions, namely, SBCWP No. 5739 of 2001 (Ramgarh Silica Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur v. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Special Circle 2, Jaipur) and SBCWP No. 5541 of 2001 (Ramgarh Silica Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur v. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Special Circle 2, Jaipur) have become final and have not been challenged before the honourable Supreme Court. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-Department Ms. Tanvi Sahay submitted that there is no justification .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ween the same parties. The relevant portion is quoted hereinbelow in (SBCWP No. 5739 of 2001): "Counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy as raised in the present writ petition has already been decided by this court. Reference has been made of the judgment of this court in the case of Arihant Solvex Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan reported in [2007] 10 VST 582 (Raj);. [2005] 11 Tax Update 297 and in the case of Laxmi Industries v. State of Rajasthan reported in [1995] 99 STC 584 (Raj). There cannot be any dispute that initially the petitioner had been given tax exemption up to 75 per cent under the new incentive scheme of 1989 as is evident from the eligibility certificate issued by the concerning authorities. This court, in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ny ground. Mr. R.B. Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has not disputed the correctness of the said judgment. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned assessment order dated October 22, 1988 (annexure 8) and consequential demand notice dated October 22, 1988 (annexure 9) for the year 1995-96 are, hereby, quashed and set aside." This court in the case of Laxmi Industries v. State of Rajasthan reported in [1995] 99 STC 584 (Raj) came to the conclusion that the CTO could not have recourse to sit upon the jurisdiction of screening committee to cancel the eligibility certificate granted to the petitioner and observed and held as under (page 586 in 99 STC): "The learned counsel invited my attention to para .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... petitions in petitioners' (assessees) own case therefore, in the light of these judgments the order of the AO does not stand and is liable to be quashed and set aside. Even otherwise, this court in the case of Arihant Solvex Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan reported in [2007] 10 VST 582 (Raj);. [2005] 11 Tax Update 297 and Laxmi Industries [1995] 99 STC 584 (Raj), has come to the conclusion that the AO has no jurisdiction to sit over the judgment passed by the committee, and the proper course for the AO was to make a representation to the committee in case the petitioner was deviating from the claim originally granted which has not been done in the present case. Therefore, the AO has no jurisdiction to take his own view and going behind .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates