9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel appearing for the petitioner. Shri C.B. Tripathi, Special Counsel appears for the State respondents. 2. The petitioner is a registered society under U.P. Societies Registration Act. It is also registered with U.P. Khadi and Gramodyog Board. It is engaged in manufacturing rice from paddy. The sale of the rice upto Rs. 50 lacs was exempted by notification dated 31.1.1985. 3. By a notice d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was held as follows:- "6. We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. The controversy involved in this writ petition has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 575 of 2003 (M/s. Him Gramodyog Sansthan vs. Additional Commissioner and Others) decided on 19.12.2006, wherein this Court has held that units of Khadi Gram Udyog Board were entitled for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnment Order dated 27.02.1997. This position has been clarified by the Government Order dated 30.09.2004, which being clarificatory in nature applied retrospectively. 8. The arguments raised by the Special Counsel is misconceived. Under the Government Order dated 31.01.1985, the exemption from trade tax liability has been granted on the sale of the products by the Units of the Khadi Gram Udyog Bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 38 of Entry-3. An exclusion clause can not be treated as a clarificatory clause, or clarification of existing clause. The exclusion of specific goods clearly proves that the excluded goods were included in this clause prior to that date of exclusion. The notification dated 30.09.2004, which carries exclusion of some goods will apply prospectively and not with retrospective effect. The reassessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
