9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has met the other requirements. - Decided against assessee. - VATAP-47-2014 (O&M), VATAP-48-2014 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 24-3-2015 - S.J. Vazifdar, Acting CJ And G. S. Sandhawalia,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Advocate, and Mr. Suresh Kumar Yadav, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, AAG, Haryana ORDER S.J. Vazifdar, A.C.J. The above seven appeals are filed under Section 36(1) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 against a common order dated 22.10.2013 passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal. The appeals are, therefore, disposed of by a common order and judgement. We will for convenience refer to the facts from VATAP-47-2014. 2. The above seven VATAPs No. 47 to 53 pertain to the assessment years 1997-1998, 1996-1997, 1998-1999, 1997-1998, 1996-1997, 1995-1996 and 1995-1996, respectively. There are two appeals each for the three assessment years 1995-1996, 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 as there were separate assessments under the Central Sales Tax Act and the Haryana General Sales Tax Act. For the assessment year 1998-1999, the assessment was only under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act and there is, therefore, only one appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 in respect of assessment years 1997-1998 under the Haryana Sales Tax Act and raised an additional demand of ₹ 2,05,176/-. The appellant filed an appeal against the assessment order before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad which was disposed of by an order dated 25.08.2009. The appellant thereafter filed a further appeal before the Haryana Tax Tribunal which was rejected by the impugned order dated 22.10.2013. 7. The appellant contends that this appeal raises the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether the dealer is bound to be assessed to tax separately after the rejection of claim for further exemption qua expansion of the existing unit for which a separate registration was taken for limited purpose of becoming eligible for applying for further exemption? (ii) Whether Rule 28A of the Sales Tax Rules prohibits extending benefits of exemption from payment of tax on sale of products of expanded capacity within the overall limit of exemption granted to the original unit? 8. Section 13-B of the Haryana Sales Tax Act reads as under:- 13B- Powers to exempt certain class of industries - The State Government may, if sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all be subject to the condition that the beneficiary/industrial unit after having availed of the benefit:- (i) shall continue its production at least for the next five years not below the level of average production for the preceding five years; and (ii) shall not make sales outside the State for next five years by way of transfer of consignment of goods manufactured by it. (b) In case the unit violates any of the conditions laid down in clause (a), it shall be liable to make, in addition to the full amount of tax-benefit availed of by it during the period of exemption/deferment, payment of interest chargeable under the Act as if no tax exemption/deferment was ever available to it; Provided that the provisions of this clause shall not come into play if the loss in production is explained to the satisfaction of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner concerned as being due to the reasons beyond the control of the unit. Provided further that a unit shall not be called upon to pay any sum under this clause without having been given reasonable opportunity of being heard. 10. As we mentioned earlier, on 07.11.1996, the appellant had applied for exemption under Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in State of Haryana and others Vs. Bharti Tele Tech Limited, 2014 (3) SCC 556. It was contended before the Supreme Court, as it was before us that as the assessee had established another unit as an expansion unit which had come into commercial production with effect from 27.03.1998 and for the purpose of determining the level of production after 12.12.1998 the production figures of the expansion unit were also required to be taken into account. The Supreme Court held as under:- 16. The said decision in R.K. Mittal Mills case, as we perceive, was rendered in a totally different context. In the present case, we are not concerned with the withdrawal of eligibility certificate. We are concerned with the consequences that have been enumerated in clause (b) of sub-rule (11) of Rule 28-A which clearly stipulates that in case of violation of clause 11 (a) (i) of sub-rule (11), the assessee shall be liable for making, in addition to the full amount of tax-benefit availed of by it during the period of exemption/deferment, with interest chargeable under the Act. Thus, reliance placed by the High Court on the said decision is misconceived and inappropriate. 17. The nub of the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recedent to become eligible but that does not mean that the production of the said unit will be taken into account for sustaining the benefit of the first unit. They are independent of each other as far as sub-rule (11) of Rule 28-A is concerned. We are disposed to think so as the grant of exemption has a sacrosanct purpose. 21. The concept of exemption has been introduced for the development of industrial activity and it is granted for a certain purpose to a unit for certain types of goods. Exemption can be granted under the Rules or under a notification with certain conditions and also ensure payment of taxes post the exemption period. The concept of exemption is required to be tested on a different anvil, for it grants freedom from liability. In the case at hand, as we understand, it is unit specific. The term unit has not been defined. The grant of exemption unit wise can be best understood by way of example. An entrepreneur can get an exemption of a unit and thereafter establish number of units and try to club together the production of all of them to get the benefit for all. It would be well-nigh unacceptable, for what is required is that each unit must meet the condition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
