Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2011 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (9) TMI 487 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxConstitutional validity - Repeal of the Maharashtra Purchase Tax on Sugarcane Act 1962 and amendment to MVAT Act, 2002 - held that:- The Amending Act provided that the MVAT Act, 2002 would come into force from 01 April 2005. Simultaneously, the State Legislature provided for the deletion of clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 95, in Section 55 of the Amending Act 2005. The net consequence was that simultaneously with the enforcement of the MVAT Act, 2002, the repealing provisions contained in Section 95(1) stood amended so as to delete a reference to the repeal of the Maharashtra Purchase Tax on Sugarcane Act, 1962. The State Legislature was within its plenary power to do so. As a matter of fact, the repealing provisions of Section 95(1)(c) were never brought into force. Simultaneously with the enforcement of the MVAT Act, 2002 on 01 April 2005, the repealing provisions were reconstructed so as to exclude a reference to the repeal of the Purchase Tax Act. Hence, there is no merit in the first submission. Discrimination in Remission of Tax in respect of certain industries - right of assessee to claim remission from tax - legislative powers - held that:- The levy of tax is a sovereign function. The power to remit the payment of tax is an incidence of the sovereign power of the State. No assessee has a vested right to claim a remission from the payment of tax. An assessee may in a given situation, be aggrieved if a remission has been granted to one but not to any other assessee similarly situated. - However, in this case a challenge on the ground of discrimination has not been set up with any particularity. Consequently, as a matter of first principle, we do not find any substance in the contention of the Petitioner. In the application for remission that was submitted by the Petitioner on 28 July 2010, it was only stated that the Unit is a new unit and facing financial difficulties. No details whatsoever were furnished to the State Government. The State Government was in those circumstances justified in rejecting the request for remission. The exercise of the power by State Government cannot hence be faulted.
|