9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry 44-A of the F.D. Notification dated 26th July 1996, which in fact permitted 100% exemption from sales tax. The decision in Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. [ 2005 (8) TMI 121 - SUPREME COURT ] is instructive in this regard. In similar circumstances in that case, the Supreme Court disapproved the approach of the sales tax authorities seeking to override the exemption granted by the Department of Industries and Commerce. It was held that the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (DCCT) certainly could not assume that the exemption was wrongly granted nor did he have the jurisdiction under Section 20 of the State Act to go behind the eligibility certificate and embark upon a fresh enquiry with regard to the appellant's eligibility for the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uct under IPR-92 and in terms of Entry-42 of the exemption list as per the Finance Department Notification dated 23rd September, 1992. The Petitioner was eligible for sales tax concession for a period of five years from the date of commencement of the commercial production i.e. from 2nd June, 1995 till 1st June, 2000. The total fixed capital investment of the Unit was certified at ₹ 2,15,000/- and the sales tax exemption was restricted to 75% of the fixed capital investment amount. 4. The Petitioner sought to expand the Industrial Unit during the operational period of IPR -1996 by making additional fixed capital investment of ₹ 2,19,000/-, which was duly apprised by the DIC, Balasore. The Petitioner s Industrial Unit commence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OST Act. 7. In response to the above application, the STO wrote to the Petitioner on 6th October, 2001 declining to furnish reasons by simply stating that the grounds for reassessment proceedings for the period 1998-99 were same as for the previous year i.e. 1997- 98. 8. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S. S. Padhy, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Revenue Department. 9. The first ground urged by Mr. Sahoo, learned Senior Counsel was that without there being a valid assessment order and on the completion of the original assessment, there is no question of reassessment. He placed reliance on the decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5-96, 96-97 and 97-98, the Petitioner was indeed eligible for sales tax exemption upto 75% of the fixed capital investment. With there being no assessment order in the first place, clearly there could not have been any reassessment proceedings as explained in para 4 of Filter Company (supra), which reads as under: 4. It is crystal clear therefrom that it applies only if an assessment has already been made and there has been under-assessment or escaped assessment therein. In a case where there has been no assessment, as in the case before us for the assessment years in question, the provisions of section 19 do not apply and cannot be invoked. 12. Moreover, there had to be some fresh materials to justify the reopening of the assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the eligibility certificate and embark upon a fresh enquiry with regard to the appellant's eligibility for the grant of the benefits. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents sales tax authorities is telling. It is said that the Sales Tax Department had decided to cancel the eligibility certificates for sales tax incentives. As we have said the eligibility certificates were issued by the Department of Industries and Commerce and could not be cancelled by the Sales Tax Authorities. [See in this connection Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 9 SCC. 14. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Court sets aside the impugned order dated 6th October, 2001 passed by the STO (Annexure-5) and the reassessment proceedings for the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
