9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 871X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ligibility granted by the committee. In the light of the judgments and the judgment of the apex court in the case of Sonebhadra Fuels [2006 (8) TMI 304 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] in which the same business was there as in the present case where it has been held to be manufacturing and that was the objection of the AO that the assessee is not a manufacturer now therefore, in the light of the judgment of the apex court where the activity has been held to be manufacturing then even on the merits the claim of the petitioner deserves to be allowed. - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent A. O. was not justified in taking adverse view despite claim having been allowed by the committee. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon 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 also in Laxmi Industries v. State of Rajasthan reported in [1995] 99 STC 584 (Raj) wherein this court came to the conclusion that the A.O. was not justified in deciding against the exemption certificate granted by higher authority, namely, the committee and accordingly quashed the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the honourable apex court, in the case of Sonebhadra Fuels v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , at the outset she submitted that the writ petition is not at all maintainable. She submitted that the writ petition may be dismissed as the petitioner was having alternative remedy available with it. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record as well as the judgments cited at the Bar, in my view when this court in two aforesaid connected writ petitions in between the same parties has quashed the assessment order itself and such orders of this court has become final then in view of this fact itself the claim of the respondent is not acceptable particularly, when this court has already quashed the assessment orders passed simultaneously therefore, there is no justification for relegating the matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowed. The impugned notice and the consequential demand notice in the present matter are quashed and set aside." Thereafter, this court again for the assessment year 1995-96 in between the same parties in SBCWP No. 5541 of 2001 (Ramgarh Silica Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur v. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Special Circle 2, Jaipur) decided on August 26, 2010 followed the aforesaid judgment dated August 3, 2005 and observed as under: "By now it is well-settled that under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1989, the jurisdiction to determine whether an industrial unit is eligible for sales tax exemption or not, has been conferred on the Screening Committee of the State Level or District Level depending upon the fact that whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner and, therefore, he intends to withdraw the exemption. This, in my view, the assessing authority had no jurisdiction to do. If he was aggrieved that a sanction has wrongly been issued in favour of the petitioner which is contrary to the scheme, his option was to have approached the District Level Screening Committee, who if satisfied with the complaint of the Commercial Taxes Officer, could have taken appropriate proceedings by giving notice to the petitioner, if it was so permitted under the scheme. However, the Commercial Taxes Officer-respondent No. 3, could not have recourse to confer upon himself the jurisdiction to cancel the eligibility certificate granted to the petitioner on his opinion that it was wrongly granted. Theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
