9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat was provided in the OST Act, the fact remains that in the present case the Petitioner had already availed, for AY 1997-98, benefit under the IPR-92 to the extent of ₹ 10,79,821/- leaving a balance of ₹ 87,107/-. It would not have been possible therefore for the Petitioner to have filed a Form I-D (92) for the entire sum of purchase of manganese ore as was done by the Petitioner. The Court therefore is unable to find any error committed in the AA requiring the Petitioner to pay sales tax @ 16% on the balance purchase of manganese ore of the value of ₹ 6,13,404.87/-. At the highest, a sum of ₹ 87,107/- can be adjusted against tax liability so determined. The revision petition is disposed of. - STREV No.5 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finished products for a period of five years in terms of the eligibility certificate issued by the competent authority. However, this exemption is subject to a capping or ceiling of 75% of the fixed capital investment. 3. The Petitioner states that it made a fixed capital investment of ₹ 15,55,904/- and therefore is entitled to avail exemption from payment of sales tax up to a maximum ceiling limit of 75% thereof i.e. ₹ 11,66,928/- both towards purchase of raw materials, spare parts, machineries as well as sale of finished products. 4. For the assessment year (AY) 1997-98, the Petitioner claimed exemption in respect of purchase of manganese ore worth ₹ 11,57,823.62 on the strength of Form I-D (92). It also claimed e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, learned Senior Advocate places reliance on the decision of this Court in Luis Packaging Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Orissa and others (2010) 32 VST 481 (Ori) where it was held that when the State Government granted benefits under an IPR (in that case, it was IPR 1996), it must be presumed to be aware of the concessions otherwise available to the dealers under the OST Act and that therefore the benefits under the IPR-96 was over and above what was provided under the OST Act . This decision was reiterated in the subsequent decision dated 20th March 2019 of this Court in W.P.(C) No.11513 of 2005 (Rexon Strips Ltd. v. State of Orissa). It is accordingly submitted that in the present case, the matter should be remanded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n time and therefore, the Petitioner should not be permitted to do so at this stage. 11. The above submissions have been considered. While it is true that the legal position became clear after the decision of this Court in Luis Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (supra) where the Court categorically holding that the benefits available to the dealers under the IPR would be over and above what was provided in the OST Act, the fact remains that in the present case the Petitioner had already availed, for AY 1997-98, benefit under the IPR-92 to the extent of ₹ 10,79,821/- leaving a balance of ₹ 87,107/-. It would not have been possible therefore for the Petitioner to have filed a Form I-D (92) for the entire sum of purchase of manganese ore as w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
