Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2015 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 449 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxExemption of tax under section 4A - Satisfaction of requirement of diversification the assessee pertaining to land with regard to its ownership and tenancy for seven years - Held that:- requirement relating to land, building, etc., are contemplated in Explanation (1) in the context of a new unit but in respect of units which are already existing but have undergone expansion, diversification or modernization, the matter is governed by Explanation (5) of Section 4A - revisionist-assessee was claiming certain benefits as a result of expansion and diversification of an existing industrial undertaking, hence the requirement of Explanation (1) could not have been read under Explanation (5), particularly in absence of anything available in the statute book permitting to do so. - it was required to satisfy the requirements contemplated in Explanation (5) and the requirement under Explanation (1) have wrongly been taken into account by the Tribunal in the impugned order, as the same is not applicable. It cannot be said that a person, manufacturing a particular compound in tablet form, if starts manufacturing the same compound in injection form, there is no change and it is one and the same thing. Moreover a different form of a particular item per se cannot be said that it amounts to manufacturing the same item. On the face of also, it amounts to manufacturing an item with expansion of industrial establishment for the reason that machines, plants and other items will have to be added so as to go for manufacturing different form of item. - when a person demands a particular pesticides in a particular form, the supplier does not make him available the item in whatever form he had. In common parlance also, therefore, the dust pesticides and liquid pesticides are treated differently. At least in this regard no otherwise finding has been recorded by the Tribunal and in fact it has gone only on the aspect that since the two things are different in forms only, therefore, they are same. This approach on the part of the Tribunal is totally erroneous and in any case the inference drawn by the Tribunal also cannot be upheld. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|