TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court was delivered by S.P. BHARUCHA, J.- The appellant was issued an eligibility certificate under the provisions of an exemption notification dated February 9, 1977 issued in exercise of the powers conferred by section 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976. The said certificate granted to the appellant an exemption for raw materials required by it in the process of manufacture. In the words of the judgment of the High Court, "The raw material, as per the certificate, included for exemption was limestone, laterite and iron ore, gypsum, pozzolanic materials such as coal ash, cal slinder, brick bats and calcine clay, etc., all types of coal, lubricants and gunny bags. Later, the certificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o power or authority to review the certificate of eligibility once granted....." There is no finding of the High Court on this contention but, on another contention, the High Court thought it appropriate to order that the matter be placed again before the authorities of the first respondent. Against the judgment and order of the High Court, the appellant is here by special leave. 4.. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that had the High Court dealt with the aforesaid contention, it would surely have been decided in favour of the appellant because the very same issue had been dealt with by the High Court, and, incidentally, by the same Bench, about a month earlier. This judgment of the High Court is in K.P. Enterprises v. Divis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t ought not to have gone into the question merely for the purpose of the future and, at any rate, ought to have noticed the highly inequitable consequences of its interference so far as the appellant- society was concerned. The appellant was given the exemption by the State, it was challenged by the respondents, the High Court did not suspend the notification pending the writ petition, the appellant was statutorily prohibited from collecting the sales tax which was exempt and when the writ petition was allowed in 1990 quashing the exemption of September, 1977, the appellant became liable to pay the tax for the period for September, 1977 to March, 1984. Learned counsel for the appellant informed us that now the department has indeed taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecause it had been subsequently got amended at a subordinate level to include gunny bags. There is no warrant for the submission. As the High Court noted, the said certificate specified gunny bags from the very beginning. In any event, the case now sought to be made out would have been a case of fraud which would have been specified in the notice to review. As we have seen, the notice for review did not so state. It did not even mention which items in the said certificate were sought to be excluded on the ground that they had been "specified in addition to raw materials". 8.. There was, in our view, no justification for reviewing the said certificate long after the term thereof had expired and, therefore, long after its benefit had been a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
