Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2008 (2) TMI 838

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ax (Deferment and Exemption) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Rules, 1991"). It is relevant to mention that vide order dated May 19, 2005 (annexure P19) the petitioner was required to deposit the amount as a consequence of cancellation of its eligibility and exemption certificate under the Rules of 1991. The said order was passed by the sales tax authorities as the Director of Industries and Commerce, Punjab vide his order dated March 30, 2005 has found that the petitioner is not eligible for grant of incentive of exemption from sales tax. The petitioner had filed representation to the respondent-department against the order dated March 30, 2005 which was dismissed vide order dated June 15, 2005 (annexure P20).   As per t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ective steps by April 30, 2000. It is the case of the petitioner that it was granted eligibility certificate on November 28, 2002 vide annexure P10 by the Department of Industries for grant of incentives of sales tax exemption. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner-company being eligible for the said incentives submitted an application for issuing it the sales tax exemption certificate on May 30, 2002 vide annexure P13. The said application was duly received in the office of the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Rupnagar vide annexure P14 and in pursuance of this application, the petitionercompany was granted sales tax exemption certificate dated August 26, 2003 vide annexure P15. Vide this certificate the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ificate with reference to rule 8 of the Punjab General Sales Tax (Deferment and Exemption) Rules, 1991 vide order dated May 19, 2005 (annexure P19) and required the petitioner-company to deposit the amount of Rs. 55,63,150 immediately. The petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 18390 of 2005 in this court challenging the order dated May 19, 2005. As per the averments of the petitioner notice of motion was issued and reply was filed by the respondents disclosing that respondent No. 3, i.e. The Director of Industries and Commerce Department, Punjab, Chandigarh has rejected his representation vide order dated June 15, 2005. Since the said order was not challenged in C.W.P. No. 18390 of 2005 therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... laced on record a copy of the judgment dated October 31, 2006 passed by this court in C.W.P. No. 18390 of 2005. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner has challenged the order dated May 19, 2005 annexure P19 earlier in C.W.P. No. 18390 of 2005 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn by this court as the petitioner has not raised any challenge to the withdrawal of the eligibility certificate issued by the Department of Industries. A perusal of the judgment dated October 31, 2006 would show that neither any opportunity was granted to challenge the order dated May 19, 2005 (annexure P19) afresh by this court nor any such prayer was made by the petitioner while praying for dismissal of writ petitio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the agreement to sell (annexure P1) dated March 24, 2000 it is stated that the owner of the land has received only a sum of Rs. 50,000. There is no recital to the effect that the possession of the land has been handed over to the petitioner-company through the said agreement to sell. Both these documents, i.e., agreement to sell (annexure P1) and sale deed (annexure P12) are contradictory to the averments made in para No. 2 of the writ petition wherein the petitioner has specifically stated that he had paid a sum of Rs. 50,000 as earnest money and in pursuance of the said agreement to sell the petitioner-company was put in possession of the land. It is well-settled that the agreement to sell will not transfer the title of the land and the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates