TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch this court did not have the occasion to consider the said issues on merit. The failure on the part of the petitioner's counsel to argue on the collateral issues raised in the writ petition having a material bearing in the outcome of the writ petition would amount to sufficient reason for reviewing/recalling the order dated January 9, 2013 Review petition allowed - The order dated January 9, 2013 passed in W. P. (C) No. 1100 of 2009 is hereby re-called. - Review Petition Nos. 88-89/2013 - - - Dated:- 24-1-2017 - Ajit Singh C. J. AND Suman Shyam J. P. K. Goswami, Senior Advocate, K. Goswami and B. D. Deka for the petitioner. D. Saikia, Senior Additional Advocate General, Assam, B. Gogoi, Standing Counsel, Finance and Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VST 1 (Gauhati)) challenging the said decision espousing the cause of its associates who were having existing industrial units in Assam. The review applicant was also attracted by the announcement of sales tax exemption for 7 (seven) years offered to the new units under the Assam Industrial Policy, 2003 , and was desirous of setting up a industrial unit in Assam for manufacturing of packaged drinking water. Accordingly, the petitioner had submitted an application dated September 4, 2008 before the General Manager, District Industries and Commerce Centre, Kamrup, seeking grant of eligibility certificate. However, since the respondents had not taken any action on the said application dated September 4, 2008 filed by the petitioner and app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same was not the only issue raised by the petitioner, inasmuch as, the review petitioner had pleaded that de hors the drinking water the petitioner is also involved in manufacturing of plastic bottles, pet and jars and, therefore, would be entitled to exemption of sales tax under the Industrial Policy of 2003, on such count as well. Mr. Goswami submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed in the light of the judgment and order dated January 9, 2013 passed in W. P. (C) No. 12 of 2009 (N. E. Packaged Drinking Water Manufacturers' Association v. State of Assam [2013] 58 VST 1 (Gauhati)) and the petitioner's counsel failed to argue the other issues raised in the writ petition. The learned senior counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... January 9, 2013 , Mr. Saikia, learned senior Additional Advocate General, Assam, submits that there is no merit in the contention raised by the senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, inasmuch as, the subject-matter of dispute before the Division Bench, in the batch of writ petition was pertaining to the legality and validity of the determination made by the Commissioner of Taxes by the order dated September 30, 2008 and the question now sought to be raised was never urged before the Commissioner of Taxes by the petitioner. He submits that failure to urge a ground taken in the writ petition would amount to negligence on the part of the petitioner and the same cannot be a ground for reviewing/recalling the order dated January 9, 2013. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated January 9, 2013, which reads as follows: In view of order passed today in W. P. (C) No. 12 of 2009, this writ petition is also dismissed. From a bare reading of the order dated January 9, 2013 passed in W. P. (C) No. 12 of 2009 (N. E. Packaged Drinking Water Manufacturers' Association v. State of Assam [2013] 58 VST 1 (Gauhati)), we find that although the petitioner had raised the plea of promissory estoppels and legitimate expectation to receive the benefit of exemption under the Industrial Policy of 2003 besides claiming its right to receive exemption on account of the manufacture of the plastic bottles, yet, the learned counsel for the petitioner had failed to advance arguments on those issues as a result of which this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|