9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eral Sales Tax Act, 1958 empowers the State Government to grant exemption to dealers of goods from payment of tax or to grant benefit of deferment in payment of tax. In pursuance to the aforesaid power vested, the State Government has issued a notification on October 23, 1981, as contained in annexure P4 and according to this notification, certain exemptions are to be granted to industries. The petitioner claims to be entitled to grant of exemption from payment of tax under this notification of 1981. Another notification was issued by the State Government granting exemption again vide annexure P5 on October 16, 1986. In this notification (hereinafter referred to as, "the 1986 Scheme") also similar provision for granting exemption, as was available in the earlier notification of 1981, was provided for. It is the case of the petitioner that after he had started production on February 13, 1989, petitioner submitted an application to the General Manager, District Industrial Centre, Satna, seeking exemption under the notification of 1981 (hereinafter referred to as, "the 1981 Scheme"). However, as the application was not in the proper pro forma as prescribed in the notification, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmittee has dismissed the appeal holding that the District Level Committee has correctly given benefit to the petitioner under the 1986 Scheme. The petitioner applied for grant of exemption for the first time in May 1989 and as the petitioner wanted change of his option, then he should have applied within the period of 90 days of March 3, 1989, application was rejected. It is the case of the petitioner that his application is rejected on incorrect consideration. It is pointed out by Shri Samaiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, that once the order was passed by the Division Bench of this court in the writ petition, M.P. No. 910 of 1992, respondents were duty-bound to grant exemption to the petitioner on the basis of 1981 Scheme and in refusing to do so, it is argued that the respondents have committed error. That apart, the second ground urged by Shri Samaiya is that the 1986 Scheme did not supersede the earlier 1981 Scheme. It only granted the benefit with some modification and the option to claim benefit under the 1981 Scheme was protected. It is stated that the limitation of 90 days prescribed in the proviso to clause (12A) of the 1986 Scheme vide amending notification dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdance with law. That being so, the contention of the petitioner to the effect that after decision of the Division Bench, the application could not be rejected is wholly misconceived. A perusal of the notification issued on October 23, 1981 indicates that State Government has exempted certain class of dealers as specified in Column No. (i) of the Schedule appended to this notification from payment of tax and the eligibility conditions stipulated in the said notification contemplates that the industry should have commenced production on or before April 1, 1986, but before August 1, 1986. Further exemption is to be granted to such industries which have taken steps contemplated under clauses (i), (ii) and (iii), but have commenced production after August 1, 1986. Admittedly, the petitioner had commenced production after August 1, 1986 with effect from February 13, 1989 and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for exemption under the second part of this notification only if clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) are fulfilled. It is not the case of the respondents that petitioner does not fulfil these conditions and is not entitled to the benefit of this notification. The second notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner was insisting upon grant of benefit under this Scheme. However, this benefit is denied to the petitioner only on the ground that he has not submitted option within 90 days, as stipulated under clause (12) of the notification dated March 3, 1989. That being so it would be appropriate to consider the options indicated in clause (12) of this notification dated March 3, 1989. A perusal of this notification indicates that the said notification was issued on March 3, 1989 and was a clarification to clause (12A) of the notification issued on October 16, 1986. Clause (12A) of this notification reads as under: "Provided that a dealer who had opted for the facility of exemption under SRD Notification No. A-3-41-81(35)-ST-V dated October 23, 1981, before the date of commencement of this provision may within 90 days of such date opt for the facility of exemption under this notification and thereupon he shall avail of such facility for the unexpired period of eligibility." (emphasis Here italicised. supplied) From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the condition stipulated therein is that a dealer who has opted for exemption under the 1981 Scheme, may within 90 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
