9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25, 2003. As per photocopies of the C form register, the petitioner is purchasing the goods from outside the State of Madhya Pradesh and, therefore, liable to pay the entry tax. From the record, it is also clear that prior to relevant order and after the relevant order, the petitioner has already purchased the goods from outside the State of Madhya Pradesh for which C forms were issued to the petitioner from time to time. The petitioner after its registration under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 purchased the goods from outside the State of Madhya Pradesh and therefore, is liable to pay the tax as per the Act and is not entitled to take the benefit of notification. - Decided against the petitioner - W. P. Nos. 356 of 2004, W. P. Nos. 157 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds automatically rectified and, therefore, the impugned orders be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the learned authorities for deciding the matter afresh. He has also drawn our attention to the return and submitted that the fact of issuance of C form to the petitioner was taken for the first time in the return and, therefore, the matter has to be remitted to the learned revisional authority for deciding the question of grant of exemption afresh. 4. In reply, learned panel lawyer has submitted that with effect from April 1, 1995 handloom and powerloom weavers were exempted from operation of sections 5 and 10 of the Act subject to satisfaction of two conditions (a) the raw material purchased should be utilized as such and (b) s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Act, the charging section is section 3. In absence of any mention in the notification regarding exemption from operation of either the commercial tax under section 9 or entry tax under section 3 of the Entry Tax Act, it cannot be a gain-said that the petitioner having satisfied the conditions of the notification, would be exempted from payment of commercial tax and as a necessary corollary would be further exempted from payment of entry tax. In otherwords unless the petitioner establishes that the notification affords exemption from payment of commercial tax, it cannot necessarily follow that the petitioner would be immune from levy of the entry tax. 8. In the matter of W. P. No. 356 of 2004 (Nutan Synthetics v. Addl. Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner therein purchased the goods from dealers situated at Ahmedabad and issued C form to various purchaser situated at Ahmedabad. A list of such C form issued under rule 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax (Central) Rules, 1957 is annexed along with the return. 10. As per certificate issued by the Department (annexure R/1), it is clear that the petitioner is a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The respondents-Department has issued C form to the petitioner from time to time right from October 16, 1986 to December 25, 2003. As per photocopies of the C form register (annexure R/2), the petitioner is purchasing the goods from outside the State of Madhya Pradesh and, therefore, liable to pay the entry tax. From ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
