TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 777X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les Tax Act, 1954 and the Assessing Authority committed error of law by denying the set off of ₹ 15,537/- to the assessee and also committed error of law by imposing consequential liability of payment of interest of ₹ 8,390/-. The detail facts under what circumstances the assessee claimed the set off of ₹ 15,537/- are not mentioned in all the three orders, that are order passed by the Assessing Authority dated 3.7.1996, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated 2.7.1997 as well as from the order passed by the Tax Board dated 19.6.2001, but the question of law raised by the revenue can be decided in this revision petition. The revenue's case is that in view of clear language used in sub- clause ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies and perused the reasons given in the orders impugned. The Incentive Scheme as Sales Tax Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1987 was issued by issuing Notification No.679 dated 23.5.1987. This scheme was framed by exercising powers conferred by Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. As per clause 4 of the Scheme of 1987, an industrial unit is entitled to claim exemption from payment of tax on fulfilling the conditions of Scheme of 1987. The assessee is eligible to said tax exemption and this fact is not in dispute. Dispute is about the interpretation of sub-clause (c) of clause 4 and Explanation appended to it. Sub-clause (c) of clause 4 of Scheme of 1987 is as under:- 4. Exemption from tax on sales .- (a) .. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the Act of 1954 but exception to it is provided under the explanation which clearly provides that the benefit for which such assessee is entitled to under Sections 5C and 5CC of the RST Act 1954 on sale or purchase of the goods on concessional rate of tax, then that benefit will continue. Clause 4(c) and its Explanation as well as Section 5C abd 5CC of the Act of 1954 are absolutely clear and that there is no ambiguity. The ambiguity is because of the reason that the facts are not mentioned in the order by the Assessing Authority or by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or by the Tax Board with respect to the claim of the assessee. It is not clear whether the assessee is claiming set off of the amount which he might have paid be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee could have claimed the benefit of payment of tax at lower rate of tax as provided under Section 5C of the Act of 1954 but the Tax Board without examining the fact whether the assessee in fact has paid tax beyond the tax rate prescribed under Section 5C, allowed the set off of ₹ 15,537/-.The Tax Board either itself should have examined the fact in this respect or should have remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority to inquire into the matter in the light of decision on the point of law decided by the Tax Board so that the fact, which from the orders of the Assessing Authority and the Appellate Authority is not clear and left out could have been decided. In view of the above, the revision petition is partly allowed and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
