9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e legality of three notices issued by the Purchase Tax Officer, Sugarcane, Solapur dated 4 August 2011, calling upon the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 7,34,05,112/- being the liability of the Petitioner in respect of purchase tax under the Maharashtra Purchase Tax on Sugarcane Act, 1962 for the period 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. The petitioner called into question an order passed by the State Government in the Finance Department, rejecting the application made by the Petitioner for exemption under Section 12B of the Maharashtra Purchase Tax on Sugarcane Act, 1962. 2. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956. On 29 July 2010, the Petitioner submitted an application to the State Government, seeking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stituted by which the Principal Act was to come into force on 01 April 2005. The Maharashtra Value Added Tax 2002 was thus brought into force, for the first time, in the State of Maharashtra with effect from 01 April 2005, having been notified after receiving the assent of the Governor, in the Maharashtra Government Gazette on 31 March 2005. Though in the Act as originally enacted, Section 95(1)(c) provided for the repeal of the Maharashtra Purchase Tax on Sugarcane Act 1962 that provision did not take effect for the simple reason that the parent Act itself was not brought into force until 1 April, 2005. Simultaneously, it was provided in Section 55 of the Amending Act that in Section 95 of the principal Act, clause (c) of subsection (1) sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tra Purchase Tax on Sugarcane Act, 1962. The State Legislature was within its plenary power to do so. As a matter of fact, the repealing provisions of Section 95(1)(c) were never brought into force. Simultaneously with the enforcement of the MVAT Act, 2002 on 01 April 2005, the repealing provisions were reconstructed so as to exclude a reference to the repeal of the Purchase Tax Act. Hence, there is no merit in the first submission. 6. In so far as the claim for remission is concerned, Section 12B of the Maharashtra Purchase Tax on Sugarcane Act, 1962 provides as follows: "12B. Remission of Tax - For the purpose of encouraging the {establishment of new factories or units, or for the purpose of overcoming any difficulties in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter of first principle, we do not find any substance in the contention of the Petitioner. In the application for remission that was submitted by the Petitioner on 28 July 2010, it was only stated that the Unit is a new unit and facing financial difficulties. No details whatsoever were furnished to the State Government. The State Government was in those circumstances justified in rejecting the request for remission. The exercise of the power by State Government cannot hence be faulted. 8. Section 6(1) of the Maharashtra Purchase Tax on Sugarcane Act, 1962 provides that every occupier liable to pay tax under the Act shall, within thirty days after the end of every month to which the return relates, submits a monthly return in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
