9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch dyes and moulds used by job workers to manufacture component parts for the new unit. Section 4-A of the Act continuing to exist and similar nature and purpose of the notified schemes of exemption, it appears to be prima-facie permissible in law for a 'new unit' to be entitled to avail exemption, though some part of the manufacturing activity may have been got done on a job work basis. In absence of any disabling clause, the investment made to obtain manufacture of components on job work basis may remain entitled to exemption. On the date of issuance of the eligibility certificate, the value of the machinery had clearly not been written off. That is not even the allegation of the revenue. The only conclusion that is being drawn in the present proceedings is that there was no rectifiable mistake, either factual or legal, with respect to the exemption granted to the assessee. The Divisional Level Committee having examined the facts and having granted the eligibility certificate, the same could not be overcome and/or defeated by the Commissioner by assuming power and jurisdiction under section 4-A(3) of the Act - Revision allowed - decided in favour of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on had been admitted without reference to any question of law, however, the same has been heard on the following questions of law: Whether, in the context of section 4-A(3) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, there was any legal or factual mistake in the eligibility certificate issued to the assessee with respect to the value of machinery that came to be subsequently written off and/or with respect to the value of dyes and moulds that were given out to job workers, to manufacture components used in the end product manufactured at the new unit of the assessee? 4. Shorn of unnecessary details, at present, the only dispute is, whether the exemption granted to the assessee by the Divisional Level Committee under the Eligibility Certificate No.4324 dated 26.11.1998, as amended by Eligibility Certificate No.1596 dated 4.12.2003, could have been denied by the Commissioner in exercise of its power under Section 4-A(3) of the Act, when there was no allegation of any misuse of that Eligibility Certificate. 5. There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee had set up a 'new unit' to manufacture colour television sets and that it h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act was restricted to rectifying clerical and arithmetical errors which may be patent and apparent from record and not errors about which there may be a rational debate. Reliance has been placed on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Mansarovar Bottling Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow, (1999) 115 STC 530 , as approved by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sunny Packagers Private Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. Ors., (2015) 85 VST 253 . 8. Also, it has been submitted that the act of writing off the value of machineries took place after the grant of the original eligibility certificate and, therefore, in any case, no mistake could be claimed in that regard. 9. Responding to the above, learned Standing Counsel would submit that it being a case of exemption claimed by the assessee, a heavy burden lay on the assessee to establish that the investment with respect to which it was claiming exemption had been made and utilized solely for the purpose of setting up and running a 'new unit'. The fact that the assessee had claimed exemption with respect to the machinery given to job wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ists of senior officers and is prescribed over by an officer of the same rank as the Commissioner and it is inappropriate to assume that under Section 4-A(3) of the Act the Legislature intended to vest in the Commissioner the powers of an appellate authority that could correct all mistakes whether of law or of fact in the matter of the grant of an eligibility certificate would become redundant and the Commissioner would become a Judge in his own cause. In my view the two provisions have to be given a harmonious interpretation and when the provisions of sub-section (3) confer powers of correcting legal or factual error made by the authority granting an eligibility certificate, this power has to be restricted to clerical or arithmetical errors which are patent and apparent from record and not errors about which there can be a rational debate. As stated above, in the present case, there is a debate between the parties as to whether the new products Coca Cola and Fanta which admittedly have different composition from the earlier products can be described to be goods of the same nature or they are of a nature different from those manufactured earlier and since the not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Section 4-A of the Act continuing to exist and similar nature and purpose of the notified schemes of exemption, it appears to be prima-facie permissible in law for a 'new unit' to be entitled to avail exemption, though some part of the manufacturing activity may have been got done on a job work basis. In absence of any disabling clause, the investment made to obtain manufacture of components on job work basis may remain entitled to exemption. 14. At the same time, it may be clarified that no definite conclusion is being drawn as to whether such entitlement exists in law, as claimed by the assessee and granted by the Divisional Level Committee while issuing the eligibility certificate dated 26.11.1998, as rectified and amended from time to time. That question is not required to be gone into in the present proceedings and the only conclusion that is being reached is that the issue remains debatable and the same cannot be examined by the Commissioner in the garb of his power to seek rectification of a legal or factual error. In that context, it may also be noted that present is not a case of misuse of the eligibility certificate. Similarly, in the context of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
