9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n fixed assets of ₹ 693.00 lakhs. The impugned order passed by the revisional authority denying exemption from payment of tax to the petitioner on annual production exceeding 5100 M.T. is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of the eligibility certificate and law - impugned revisional order is quashed. However, as the petitioner is required to be reassessed on the basis of the interpretation of the eligibility certificate, the matter is remitted back to the Assessing Authority to reassess the petitioner to tax on the basis of the interpretation given by us and thereafter pass a fresh order in that respect - petition allowed by way of remand. - WP-14728-2015 - - - Dated:- 4-4-2017 - Ravi Shankar Jha and Ashok Kumar Joshi, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reased the installed capacity by 911 M.T., thereby increase in total installed capacity to 5100 M.T. It is submitted that the petitioner again obtained a revised eligibility certificate in view of its expanded installed capacity on 29.5.2014. It is submitted that though the petitioner had obtained the aforesaid certificate, he was assessed to tax on its initial installed capacity. Being aggrieved by such assessment of tax, the petitioner ultimately approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.13571/2010 and this Court considering the fact that the petitioner had obtained a revised eligibility certificate on 29.5.2014 remanded the matter back to the Assessing Authority for re-assessment after taking into consideration the aforesaid eligi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bject to maximum period of 9 years for availing such exemption. It is submitted that a bare perusal of the certificate makes it clear that it does not limit the exemption to an annual production of 5100 M.T. as has been done by the revisional authority and therefore, the impugned order passed by the revisional authority deserves to be quashed. The learned Deputy Advocate General per contra submits that the contentions of the petitioner cannot be accepted as in case, it is permitted to avail exemption in respect of annual production of 5100 M.T., the petitioner would get undue benefit which would extend beyond the exemption certificate issued to the petitioner company on 29.5.2014. It is submitted that the certificate specifically provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certificate is that the petitioner would be entitled to exemption only in case its annual production is more than 4189 M.T. A perusal of paragraph 3 of the certificate makes it further clear that the petitioner shall be entitled to exemption for a period of 9 years from 2.3.2001, which is the date of commencement of commercial production after expansion and that the petitioner shall be entitled to total exemption upto the extent of the cumulative quantum of tax payable by it under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which would be 250% of the capital investment in fixed assets of ₹ 693.00 lakhs. While making such a stipulation, it has been further clarified that the period of 9 years' exempti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
