TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned single Judge of the High Court that these are mere transfers out of State is erroneous. The reasoning given by the division Bench is also not acceptable. The wording of clause (ii) are very clear. All that is required is despatch out of the State. Once there is despatch outside the State the benefit of the notification cannot be claimed. In view of the clear wording of sub-clause (ii), the High Court erred in granting the benefit of the notification when the respondents were clearly not entitled to the benefit thereof - Civil Appeal No. 2726, 2727, 2728 of 1999 - - - Dated:- 14-12-2004 - VARIAVA S.N., LAKSHMANAN AR. AND KAPADIA S.H. JJ. Vibhu Bakhru, Rahul Sharma and P.N. Puri, Advocates, for the respondents. Arun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the following conditions: (i) that these mills shall start production by 31st December, 1981; and (ii) that these mills shall not despatch yarn in the course of inter-State transaction on consignment basis or through ex-State commission agents'." 3.. Initially, the assessing authority granted to the respondents concessional rate of tax as per the said notification. However, the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner invoked his suo motu powers under section 21 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 on the ground that the mill was not established prior to December 1, 1979 and that the respondents had been transferring yarn outside the State. After considering the reply of the respondents, the Assessing Authority held that the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n place outside the State. The learned single Judge of the High Court held that all the conditions of the notification had been made out and that the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the notification. 6.. The appeal filed by the appellants has been dismissed by the division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by the im- pugned judgment. It has been held that the mill had started after December 1, 1979. It has held that even though the respondent is a spinning mill it could be treated to be a textile mill. It has been noticed that the Assessing Authority had initially taxed sales outside the State at four per cent and had given the benefit of the notifica- tion to the other sales. It is held that it is a possible view tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hin the State. If the sale is within the State then the Government is getting revenue. Thus a concession is given with a condition that the mill will not despatch out of the State. With the wording being clear and unambiguous it is not possible to accept the view that the benefit can be given in respect of sales made within the State whereas sales outside the State can be charged at the higher rate. If the interpretation was to give benefit to sales made within the State, the wording would have been to the effect "on such yarn as is sold within the State". In view of the clear wording of sub-clause (ii), the High Court erred in granting the benefit of the notification when the respondents were clearly not entitled to the benefit thereof. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
