Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2011 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (3) TMI 1525 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether the refusal to grant exemption from payment of sales tax to the petitioners' unit for various periods, is justified in law? Held that:- If the interpretation suggested by the learned Government Pleader is accepted, then the exemption mentioned in the latter portion of the provision becomes redundant and it would result in an absurd situation. The suggestion made by the learned Government Pleader that the exemption may be ignored as draftsman's folly, cannot be easily accepted. One cannot omit to note that in the former portion, the word 'or' is used and in the latter portion, 'and' is used. It is very clear that the delegatee was very cautious about the words used in the notification and if that be so, the word 'and' can be read only conjunctively. The learned counsel for the appellant is well founded in his submission that the word 'and' cannot be read as 'or'. It is also evident that the respondents became conscious of the anomaly and thereafter, by Annexure 27 dated 11.07.2000, they brought out a notification differently worded but, this cannot govern the earlier notifications and Government Orders which have already been referred to. Admittedly, the unit belonging to the appellant obtained registration from the Industrial Department as a medium scale unit for the manufacture of steel rods and bars on 06.09.1991. The suggestion made by the learned Government Pleader that clauses 2 and 3 should be read together, cannot be countenanced. Clauses 2 and 3 deal with two different situations and there is nothing in common. One is not controlled by the other. Since the petitioner's unit is registered earlier to the date mentioned in the notifications, obviously, he is entitled to the benefit. The petitioner succeeds on this ground also. It is well settled that merely because a wrong has been committed, that does not confer any right on others to claim the very same benefit. However, one needs to notice that the definite allegation of the petitioner in the writ petition is that except the unit belonging to the petitioner on other similarly situated units have been granted exemptions and his unit alone has been singled WA 991/03 & connected cases out. True, merely because a mistake might have been committed in one case, does not confer any right on the petitioner to get the very same exemption by repeating the said mistake. But, the fact that all other similarly situated units have been granted exemption, is an indication as to how the statutory authorities have understood the notifications. In favour of assessee.
|