1997 (8) TMI 504
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment orders (annexure 2 in each case) and the demand notices (annexure 3 in each case). Their particulars are as follows: S. No. Writ Petition No. RST or CST Period Date of assessment Amount levied Remarks (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 1. 3136/92 RST & CST 1.1.1992 to 31.3.1992 11.5.1992 4,46,262 1,15,933 2. 1124/92 RST 1.4.1991 to 30.9.1991 11.2.1992 18, 62,682 3. 1259/92 RST 1.10.1991 to 31.12.1991 11.2.1992 3,61,654 4. 5088/92 RST 1.4.1988 to 31.3.1989 29.8.1992 9,12,453 5. 5865/93 RST 1.4.1990 to 31.6.1991 6.10.1993 30,63,568 6. 1888/93 CST 1.4.1989 to 30.3.1990 17.2.1993 6,62,389 7. 1887/93 RST 1.4.1989 to 30.3.1990 17.2.1993 8,22,203 8. 5869/93 CST 1.4.1990 to 30.6.1991 6.10.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entral Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, "the CST Act") did not empower the State Government to withdraw the exemption with retrospective effect, the petitioner did not recover any sales tax from its customers during the aforesaid periods and in pursuance of the assessment orders the petitioner has been made liable to pay the aforesaid huge amounts. He further contended that under section 4(2) of the RST Act and 8(5) of the CST Act exemption could be granted with retrospective effect but the exemption granted could not be withdrawn with retrospective effect. Such an order is hit by article 14 of the Constitution of India, being unreasonable. He lastly contended that the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss if the assessment orders and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r a customer or a dealer. In case of grant of exemption with retrospective effect, the tax collected by the dealer had stood deposited in Government treasury. 7.. It has been held in State of Madhya Pradesh v. G.S. Dal and Flour Mills [1991] 80 STC 138 (SC) at page 165, that subsequent notification cannot take away with retrospective effect exemption granted by an earlier notification. The aforesaid notification dated January 11, 1990 has also been the subject-matter of dispute in Sales Tax Revision 94 of 1996, Bhatnagar Cement Co. v. State of Rajasthan, decided by this Tribunal on July 19, 1996*. It has been observed in para 29.2, page 14 as follows: "29.2. The granting of an exemption and the withdrawal of an exemption cannot be viewed ....