9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x and interest to the petitioner and against the recovery of certain payment of disputed tax and interest thereon. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is a limited liability company engaged in the manufacturing and sale of brushes. The export to foreign countries of brushes was channelised through the State Trading Corporation and the petitioner was exporting brushes to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 and 1-A to the writ petition. It is alleged in para 4 of the petition that the export sales have all along been considered by the sales tax authorities and by the State of U.P. as exempt from tax under article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution of India as being sales in the course of export. However, the Supreme Court in Mod. Serajuddin v. State of Orissa [1975] 36 STC 136 held that it is only the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Serajuddin's case [1975] 36 STC 136 the petitioner applied for remission of tax, interest and penalties vide representation dated May 14, 1977 (annexure 4 to the petition). However by order dated July 17, 1979 the petitioner's representation for remission of tax, etc., was rejected by respondent No. 3 vide annexure 5. The petitioner applied again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shes and not shoes. In our opinion article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked in this case. Merely because one industry has been granted certain concession for remission it does not mean that the same benefit must be granted to all the industries. In fact, para 10 of the petition refers to the notification dated April 12, 1977, wherein it is mentioned that the remission was being gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
