9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition] seeking recovery of a sum of ₹ 1,44,533/= ₹ 3,53,927/= from the petitioner. 3. The petition arises in the following factual background :- 3.1 The petitioner is a registered Public Trust engaged in manufacture and supply of furniture to different schools in villages.The petitioner is also registered as a village industry with Gujarat Rajya Khadi Gramodhyog Board-respondent no.4 herein [ the Board for short]. 3.1 It is not in dispute that the Board had issued a Certificate dated 23rd March 2005 of registration, which was valid for the period from 1st April 2005 to 31st March 2008. It is also not in dispute that on the basis of certificate issued by the Board, the petitioner had applied to the State Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Tax Act has been replaced by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, the exemptions already granted could not be withdrawn till the period of validity of such exemptions. However, with respect to further request for extending the benefits under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, the Bench was of the opinion that the same would be either a legislative function by issuance of notification in exercise of power conferred under the Statue, or it would be a mater of policy, to be decided by the Government as to whether the benefit of exemption should be extended under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act also or not. The Court, therefore, did not grant any such direction. Concluding portion of the judgment of the Court, which is relevant for our purpose, rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exemption should be extended, for which, while substituting the VAT Act, the entries have been deleted and some of the entries are specified, it may not be proper for this court to issue directions granting the reliefs as prayed for regarding the exemption under the newly substituted VAT Act. However, it will be open for the petitioners to apply to the respondent Government by making a representation highlighting the fact that the industries are established under the KVIC Act and also the new scheme also has the same object of development and therefore the core idea remains the same for which the benefit of exemption granted earlier should also continue and it will be for the respondent Government to decide it afresh in accordance with law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner to refund the principal tax relief amounting ₹ 3,53,927/= and ₹ 1,44,533/=. It was at this stage, the petitioner approached this Court in the present petition. 9. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Trust has been duly registered with the Gujarat Rajya Khadi Gramodhyog Board. The petitioner fulfills all the requirements of exemption circular dated 7th March 2009. The petitioner had therefore applied for fresh exemption certificate on 23rd March 2009, which was granted. Such certificate could not have been withdrawn without following the procedure and the exemptions already availed off could not have been withdrawn. 10. On the other hand, learned AGP Ms. Maithili Mehta drew our attention to the av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r exemptions from the payment of Value Added Tax, even if the Government desired to do so. All that the Court did was to prevent the Government from withdrawing the tax exemptions already granted under the Sales Tax Act, till the validity of the period of such exemption certificates. The Court limited the relief to this extent, declining thereafter, to issue mandamus to the Government to issue fresh exemptions under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act. This, by no means, was to limit the Government's discretion of granting fresh exemptions on such conditions, as found necessary. In fact, the Government itself came up with a fresh set of Circulars; particularly the Circular dated 9th March 2009. Under such circular, the Government envisaged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009, when the Government issued a fresh policy to grant exemption under the Value Added Tax Act also. It may be argued that in absence of any policy during this period, no exemption can be granted. However, the petitioner was already once given exemption certificate by the Government. Such exemption certificate, it is not even the case of the Government, was obtained through any misrepresentation or fraud. Under such exemption certificate, the petitioner enjoyed of the Value Added Tax benefit of approximately ₹ 1,40,000/=. Without hearing the petitioner such amount is sought to be withdrawn. The amount itself is not very large. We are informed that this is an isolated case of this kind and not a large scale operative problem so far a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
