9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 823X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... han three years thereafter raising any plea was not maintainable and as a consequence all subsequent orders passed thereon have no value at all. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner ever raised any issue regarding the period of its entitlement of exemption from payment of tax immediately after the eligibility and exemption certificates were issued to it. The issue initially was also sought to be raised nearly two years after the expiry thereof. There is no provision in the Rules providing for extension of period of eligibility or changing the dates thereof. It is too late to consider the prayer of the petitioner regarding validity of the provisions of the Rules with reference to the period of entitlement of exemption from payment of tax once the issue had attained finality way back in the year 2003. The plea of discrimination sought to be raised is also to be noticed and rejected for the reason that firstly M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. was granted deferment from payment of tax and not exemption and further there was an amendment made in the Rules to that effect. The vires of that Rule has not been challenged. Petition dismissed - decided in favor o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t areas. In the case of the petitioner, the benefit is admissible for a period of 84 months. The note appended to Rule 4 postulates that benefit is admissible from the date of production. While referring to the aforesaid provisions, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is apparent discrepancy in the aforesaid rule, as an industrial unit cannot be granted eligibility certificate on the date of production. The process is bound to take some time. Once the benefit is to be granted only after the issuance of eligibility certificate, the period for which the benefit is granted also should have been from that date and not from the date of production. 3. He further submitted that in case of M/s Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., the period which was spent in issuing the eligibility certificate to the company, was extended so as to enable the company to avail of the admissible benefit. There is no specific reply to the contention raised by the petitioner in the writ petition regarding the case of M/s Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., being similar to the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be discriminated. 4. Learned counsel for the State submitted that after the eligibility ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, the Excise and Taxation Commissioner passed order on 8.8.2012 rejecting the plea raised by the petitioner. The order was upheld by the Tribunal in appeal filed by the petitioner, as the petitioner was not able to refer to any of the provisions of the Rules, under which the petitioner was entitled to extension of period for availing the benefit of exemption from payment of tax. 5. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that the present petition is highly belated as the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner by passing order on 13.10.2003 after the matter was remitted back by this court to the Excise Taxation Commissioner for passing a speaking order. The petitioner kept quiet, though against the order passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, statutory appeal was maintainable. It was further submitted that once the order passed by the Excise Taxation Commissioner had attained finality, the petitioner having not challenged the same, any subsequent judgment will not give a cause of action to the petitioner to file a fresh representation by taking a different stand. Thereafter, even a request made by the Chairman of the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts on record suggest that the petitioner availed of the benefit for the period it was entitled to, which expired on 14.9.2000. As is evident from the communication dated 25.11.2002, the petitioner made a representation dated 24.7.2002 for refund of the tax already paid for the period the unit of the petitioner was exempted from payment of tax in terms of the exemption certificate issued in its favour. For that period, as claimed by the petitioner, it had collected and paid the tax to the State. The request made by the petitioner was rejected by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner vide communication dated 25.11.2002 mentioning that the tax charged and paid by the unit cannot be refunded. The order was impugned by the petitioner by filing CWP No. 2952 of 2003 with the following prayer: a) xx xx xx b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 25.11.2002, annexure P-18 vide which the application of the petitioner for the grant of adjustment/refund of sales tax for the period 15.9.1993 to 18.4.2000 has been rejected by totally non-speaking order and without any application of mind and being also against the provisions of Rule 4A of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record, the Managing Director of the petitioner-company made a request to the then Chief Minister of Punjab for the same relief, which was considered by the Department of Excise and Taxation and vide letter dated 31.10.2006, the Financial Commissioner, Excise Taxation, Punjab, conveyed rejection thereof to the Managing Director of the petitioner-company. Though such a representation was not maintainable in the light of the fact that the petitioner had statutory remedy of appeal against the order passed by the Excise Taxation Commissioner on 13.10.2003. The petitioner did not avail of any remedy even at that stage. The petitioner thought of filing fresh representation on 15.1.2007 referring to certain judgment and the case of M/s Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. claiming parity. Such a representation was not maintainable once the petitioner had earlier failed to avail of its statutory remedy against the order passed by the Excise Taxation Commissioner on 13.10.2003 in pursuance of the directions issued by this court. The representation of the petitioner dated 15.1.2007 was considered and rejected by the Excise Taxation Commissioner vide communication dated 16.8.2011. The Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
