Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1989 (9) TMI 374

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... entral Act"). They are engaged in the business of manufacturing poha and are registered as small-scale industrial units with the Industries Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh. Their common grievance is denial of eligibility certificate by the Director of Industries, M.P., Bhopal, which is resulting in denial of exemptions from payment of sales tax under the State and the Central Acts as per Notification dated 23rd October, 1981 (annexure 3 in M.P. No. 3476 of 1989), issued under section 12 of the State Act, as amended by Notification dated 3rd July, 1987 (annexure L in M.P. No. 3474 of 1989), read with further Notification dated 16th October, 1986, issued under section 12 of the State Act by the State Government and published in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d all other conditions of the said notifications, applied for eligibility certificate. Some of the applications have been rejected and others are likely to be rejected by the Director of Industries on the ground that in the light of a Full Bench decision of this Court in Jagdamba Industries v. State of M.P. [1988] 69 STC 1; 1988 MPLJ 620; 1988 JLJ 701, a poha mill was a traditional industry and, therefore, not entitled to any exemption under the said notifications. 4.. It is pertinent to mention here that by Notification dated 3rd July, 1987 (annexure L in M.P. No. 3474 of 1989), the Notification dated 23rd October, 1981 (annexure 3 in M.P. No. 3476 of 1989), was amended with retrospective effect from 26th October, 1981, and it was provid .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted out by the learned Advocate-General that under section 3(d)(i) of the Rice-milling Act "milling rice", with its grammatical variations means recovering rice or any product thereof from paddy. Poha is nothing but a product of paddy and, therefore, this term must include poha milling operation as well and accordingly the petitioners were not entitled to any eligibility certificate under the said notifications. 5.. The letter dated 19th September, 1980 (annexure G in M.P. No. 3476 of 1989), issued from the office of the Director of Industries does indicate that the process of manufacturing poha is different from that of milling rice from paddy. It points out that in rice milling operation, grain is separated from its chaff, whereas in po .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mills" used in the two notifications, extends to poha mills. It would not be out of place to mention here that as evident from his letter dated 19th September, 1980 (annexure G in M.P. No. 3476 of 1989), the Director of Industries was also of the view at one point of time that a poha mill was different from a rice mill and was entitled to similar exemptions notified earlier in the notifications under our consideration in these petitions. It was also pointed out that certain dealers, viz., Jain Shakti Poha Udyog, Waraseoni, Mahavir Poha Udyog, Balaghat, Arihant Poha Udyog, Amreda-Balaghat, similar to those of the petitioners were granted eligibility certificates under Notifications dated 23rd October, 1981, and 29th June, 1982, under simila .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... placed on Shri Kishan Satyanarain v. State of M.P. [1983] 54 STC 25 (MP); 1983 MPLJ 537, on behalf of the respondents, but that case is quite distinguishable on facts. In that case, entry No. 1(i) of Part V of Schedule II of the State Act was under consideration and the decision was based on the Supreme Court decision in Alladi Venkateswarlu v. Government of A.P. [1978] 41 SIC 394, which did not deal with the question whether the term "rice" would include poha. 8.. The learned counsel for the petitioners, also argue that the State Government and its officers were bound to issue eligibility certificates to the petitioners by operation of the rule of promissory estoppel against them. Firstly, in the light of our aforesaid view, it is not ne .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates