TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent year commencing from January 1, 1985 was entitled to the benefit of partial exemption or not in terms of notification dated May 6, 1986, issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The said partial exemption was to be given by comparing the increase of tax liability with average percentage in respect of other manufacturers in the State in relevant industry during the year 1984-85. The stand of the assessee was that these terms relevant industry in the notification dated May 6, 1986 could refer only to other cement industries in the State of Rajasthan manufacturing white cement which the petitioner also was manufacturing and it could not be compared with the manufacturers of other portland cement and gray cement, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommend itself to be authority. . .'. If considered on this principle, for the writ petitionerassessee, relevant industry would be 'the industry manufacturing the goods that are being manufactured by the assessee'. In our view, the mere omission of the word 'of goods' in clause (2) of annexure 1, which words have been considered by learned single judge has no adverse effect on the aspect, as to from which industry the relevant inputs are to be obtained for the accounting year 1984-85, for the purpose of computing the extent of eligibility of the assessee to claim partial exemption of tax under the notification. We may also consider here, that it is by chance that in the relevant accounting year 1984-85 there was one un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urer in the State in the relevant industry' appears to be a common parlance tax criteria, with which the commodity is known in the trade, and has noticed the common parlance distinction between portland gray cement, and the white cement in general. In our view, thus, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any error, requiring interference by us in appeal. The appeal thus, has no force, and is dismissed. Sd/(GOVIND MATHUR) J. Sd/(N.P. GUPTA) J. By the impugned order, the learned Tax Board dated August 26, 2005 also, the matter was restored back to the assessing authority for deciding afresh the case of the petitioner for aforesaid assessment year and the matter is said to be pending before the assessing authority. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In view of aforesaid, this court need not go into the question at all as to whether deeming acceptance of rectification application under section 37(3) of the Act for giving such benefit was right or wrong on the part of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal). The learned counsel for the petitioner also urged that on account of aforesaid partial exemption, certain refund would become due to the petitioner. It is needless to say that upon computation of partial exemption in terms of Division Bench decision of this court, if any refund becomes due to the petitioner, the same will have to be made by the Revenue in accordance with law and the said exercise should be completed within a period of three months from today. With the aforesaid observati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
