9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vernment issued a policy dated July 12, 2003 providing for a package of incentives and concessions in terms of annexure A. Clause 5 of the said policy provides for sales tax concession to the industrial sector. Petitioner undertook expansion/modernisation of its industrial establishment in the light of the policy. Petitioner applied for a certificate seeking for concession from the Department of Industries and Commerce, annexure B is the certificate. Petitioner was under a bona fide belief that the benefit of exemption from payment of tax would be available to it. According to the petitioner, the effect of clause 5 of the Government order would be that the concession of exemption from payment of tax would not be limited only to sales tax b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondents. Dr. Krishna invites my attention to annexure A to contend that the Government in its wisdom has chosen to introduce the industrial policy for the years 1993-98. He refers to me clause 5 of the notification to say that it provides for sales tax exemption or sales tax deferral KST/CST. He also says that in the light of annexure A, a declaration is necessary that the tax exemption is fully applicable to purchase tax. He invites my attention to the definition of tax under section 2(u) of the Act to contend that there is no difference between sales tax and purchase tax. He refers to me section 5 of the Act, the charging section. According to the petitioner purchase and sale are the two ways of looking at the same transaction. He say ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax exemptions/sales tax deferment--mutatis mutandis as applicable to new industrial units . . ." Similarly, the preamble portion of the notification dated September 23, 1993 reads as under: "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 8A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957), the Government of Karnataka hereby exempts with immediate effect, the tax payable under the said Act, in respect of goods manufactured and sold . . ." In the light of these two notifications, what is contended before me is that purchase tax is includable for the purpose of concession in terms of the policy. This argument at the outset is very attractive. But if the policy of the notification is read care ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntradict the policy decision in the matter of purchase tax as argued by the learned counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on two judgments of the Supreme Court, namely, State of Orissa v. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. [1985] 60 STC 213; [1985] Supp SCC 280 and Satnam Overseas (Export) v. State of Haryana [2003] 130 STC 107; [2003] 1 SCC 561 in support of his submissions. In Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. [1985] 60 STC 213; [1985] Supp SCC 280, the Supreme Court was not considering the policy decision as in the present case. The court was concerned with regard to the validity of the Act as I see from the judgment. The Supreme Court in para 42 (page 235 of STC) has noticed that the sale and purchase are merely two ways of looking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and straight meaning should be given to them and there is no question of adopting an interpretation favourable to the assessee . . ." The court further ruled in para 11 as under: ". . . The notification dated June 19, 1991 exempts the tax payable under the Act 'in respect of goods manufactured and sold by new industrial units'. The subject-matter of exemption is the goods that is manufactured and sold by the new industrial units. Hence, the exemption is only in regard to the taxes payable in respect of the subject of exemption, that is, 'goods manufactured and sold'. In the absence of any difficulty in ascertaining the meaning of the words and in the absence of ambiguity and in the absence of any indication that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... get benefit, is not sufficient to introduce additional word in the notification to make exemption available for purchase turnover."
These two judgments supports the view of the Revenue. In both these judgments this court has categorically ruled that the court must read the exemption notification as it stands and it is not open for this court to read the same in a manner so as to determine as to whether the assessee gets the benefit or not. In the given circumstances, and on the facts of this case, and in the light of the two decisions, it is not possible for this court to accept the claim of the petitioner and provide relief. In these circumstances both these petitions stand rejected. Parties are to bear their respective costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
