9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4% central sales tax to the State - Held that: - No doubt, the petitioner was granted Letter of Intent and agreement was also signed with the State for grant of certain benefits, but for non-compliance of certain formalities, the benefit of concessional rate of central sales tax could not be availed of by the petitioner - It is undisputed that the petitioner has charged central sales tax @ 4% from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and further directing the authorities to refund the amount of tax already paid. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is in the business of manufacturing crank shafts and heavy forging press line for use by manufactures of components for four wheeler segment. It proposed expansion of its existing unit. In terms of the Industrial Policy 2003, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r per force paid 4% central sales tax to the State. As the payable rate was 1%, it deserves refund of 3%. The submission is that the petitioner was not at fault, as delay was on the part of the State in granting the benefit for which the petitioner should not be made to suffer. If the concession has not been granted for the earlier period, it can now be granted for a period of five years. On th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble for the reason that the entire tax regime has changed, as it has shifted to one uniform Goods and Service Tax, which takes care of taxes on intra-State, inter-State sales and also excise duty. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the present petition. No doubt, the petitioner was granted Letter of Intent and agreement was also signed with the State for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... permitted to retain the same, as otherwise the same would amount to unjust enrichment. If the petitioner was aggrieved of any in-action on the part of the State at the relevant time when the expanded unit came into production, on account of which he could not avail of the concession, the grievance could be raised but the petitioner continued making representations and charged and paid tax @ 4%. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
