9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner was also carrying on the business of oil-seeds (telhan). The petitioner's application for the grant of eligibility certificate was rejected solely on the ground that the unit besides production of oil is also doing trading business of telhan, vide annexure 3 to the writ petition. The said order is dated March 16, 1988 communicated to the petitioner by means of letter dated March 31, 1988. Thereafter the petitioner filed review application and also placed reliance upon the circular of the Commissioner of Trade Tax, dated February 25, 1988 with respect to the new units established in between October 1, 1982 to March 31, 1990. However, the said review application was also dismissed. The certified copy of the order rejecting the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rect and baseless. 4.. We have heard Sri Shashi Kant, counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Kesarwani, Standing Counsel, for the respondents. 5.. From the undisputed facts it is clear that the petitioner has established a new unit of manufacturing oil. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is also carrying on the trading business of oil seeds. The Divisional Level Committee has rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of eligibility certificate only on the ground that the petitioner is also carrying on the trading business of oilseeds. In this connection the circular dated February 25, 1988 of the Commissioner is relevant. Paragraph 4 of the circular states: "Shasan ko yeh bhi sandarkhit kiya tha ki agar nayee ikayee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant considerations and the petitioner is entitled for exemption under section 4-A even if it was trading in oil-seed. There is no such condition under section 4-A that a person who is also doing trading business cannot carry on manufacturing unit of a different commodity. Even the circular issued by the Commissioner of Trade Tax does not impose any such condition. On the contrary it says that the bar has only been imposed for not trading in the product and not with the raw material. The oil-seed is not the product of the unit of the petitioner and it was also not the case of the respondents either before the Divisional Level Committee or before this Court that the petitioner is also carrying on the trading activities in oil or oil cake. 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
