Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2011 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (10) TMI 391 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWrit petition - Subsidy - Whether increased percentage of subsidy is allowed to assessee - In case of investment made in Modernization/Expansion/Diversification, the amount of subsidy shall be subject to a maximum of 50% of the additional amount of Rajasthan Sales Tax and the Central Sales Tax or VAT payable or deposited whichever is higher, in any of the three immediately preceding years known as base years - As investment predates the issue of notification dated 2.12.05, and particularly in one of the two cases the production commenced only 19 days after 2.12.05, therefore, be no doubt at all that the Applicant Company had started investment for expansion at Ras long before the new scheme was ever conceived The provision of the RIPS 2003 including amendments made thereof on 2.12.05 by addition of clauses 7 (vi) and (vii), were withdrawn on 28.4.06, primarily because of the promulgation of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2006, the new tax regime now been legislated across the country in a bid to have a common national taxation system - the special tax dispensation made available to cement units by the issuance of the notification dated 2.12.05 lated but for just about five months - Held that: Applicant Company cannot retain tax subsidy in excess of the provisions of the amended RIPS 2003 Regarding principles of promissory estoppel - The amending notification dtd.2.12.2005 nor the RIPS, 2003 itself sought initiation of effective steps just after such notification and the only condition imposed was that the option should be given within the stipulated period and commercial production should be commenced during the operative period of the Scheme and subject to investment being over ₹ 200 crores and employment provided to more than 100 persons, and all the conditions admittedly and undisputedly were satisfied by the petitioner company - Held that: The orders granting increased benefit of 75% rebate or subsidy against additional tax liability to the petitioner company were neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of State in any manner - Decided in favor of the assessee
|