Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2015 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 175 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxBenefit for unavailed tax at the shifted premises - Notification dated March 24, 2005 - eligibility certificate under the New Incentive Scheme, 1989 for sales tax exemption - Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 - Held that:- Since incentive was granted to the new industrial unit, for a period of seven years, therefore, the benefits ought to have been allowed to the petitioner till the intervening period. Since, many units which were established in such remote area or district head quarter or otherwise were facing problems relating to irregular/defective supply of power, non-availability of skilled labourers and also lack of infrastructure facility which was not envisaged by the petitioner and others therefore, on account of several representations, from different corners the Government of Rajasthan issued a notification bearing No. 394 dated March 24, 2005 - The honourable apex court in the case of R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh [1971 (9) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court], the Allahabad High Court in the case of Anand Gramodyog Samiti v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [2005 (5) TMI 613 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and the Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Peermade Tea Co. Ltd. [1994 (10) TMI 23 - KERALA High Court] also came to the conclusion. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the above judgments, looking to the purpose, objective and intention of the Notification No. 394 dated March 24, 2005 it is held that the notification is retrospective in operation and applicable to all matters pending and it is clear that the petitioner is entitled to claim benefits of the notification. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner fulfils all the criteria laid down in this notification. Since, the subsequent notification dated March 24, 2005 bearing SO No. 394, was not available before the Tax Board, therefore, the matter is being remitted back to the Tax Board, who will consider the same afresh in the light of the aforesaid notification in accordance with law. If the terms and conditions specified in the notification stand complied with by the petitioner, the claim deserves to be allowed. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|