9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tax Board. 2. Brief facts, as emerging on the face of record, are that the respondentassessee is a limited company and is engaged in the manufacturing of "vanaspati ghee" and applied on March 25, 1995 to DIC, Alwar, for the benefit under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1989, on the basis of diversification. Though the application was to be submitted in the office of the SLSC at Jaipur but the same was submitted on March 25, 1995 at Alwar. This application was forwarded by the DIC, Alwar, to the SLSC on May 17, 1995, i.e., after more than 45 days. The respondent-assessee also submitted an application directly to the Directorate on May 29, 1995, i.e., after more than two months of submitting it at the office of DIC, Alwar. 3. The SLSC, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Against the said rejection, the respondent-assessee preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Tax Board, who, vide order dated September 6, 1996, set aside the order of the SLSC and directed the SLSC to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the respondent-assessee and to pass a speaking order. 5. In pursuance to the order passed by the Tax Board, the SLSC again granted personal hearing to the director of the unit and it was pleaded by the director of the respondent-company that the date of submission of the application to DIC, Alwar may be treated as application submitted to the SLSC and if the SLSC did not treat the application given to the DIC, Alwar, the delay in submission may be condoned. It was also pleaded that the honou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acturing "vanaspati ghee" that there is excess production vis-a-vis the demand and on March 27, 1995, the honourable Chief Minister, considering the said aspect, put "vanaspati ghee" in the negative list and on and from March 27, 1995, the benefits under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1989 were curtailed. He submitted that no case was made out by the respondent-assessee, who happened to be a limited company, being unaware of the provisions of law, supported by large number of advisers and running large unit that it filed an application silently with the DIC, Alwar, when it ought to have been submitted, in all respect, before the SLSC, Jaipur and, therefore, he submitted that the SLSC was justified in coming out against the respondent-asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... requested for reversal of the order. 10. Mr. Alkesh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee, on the other hand, submits that the application was submitted in the office of the DIC, Alwar, as the respondent-assessee was conveyed that the application can be submitted in the office of the DIC, Alwar, who will forward it to the SLSC, Jaipur in due course of time. He submits that the application was submitted on or before the due date, therefore, the benefits, arising/accruing on account of such Incentive Scheme, ought to have been allowed by the SLSC itself and the Tax Board has considered the issue at length and, therefore, the order of the Tax Board deserves to be sustained. He further submits that on the basis of the certificate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as has been referred to by the Tax Board in para 14 of the said order, however, counsel for both the parties, showed their inability to provide copy of the certificate to the said claim. Similarly, a query was also made about copy of the application filed by the respondentassessee in the office of the DIC, Alwar on March 25, 1995 so as to better appreciate the facts on record, however, copy of this application was also not provided and both the sides showed their inability to place on record copy of the said application. This application dated March 25, 1995 has a great bearing on the facts of the instant case, in as such as the SLSC has alleged that the dates were manipulated on the part of the unit to show the production and submission of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C, Alwar and as to why DIC, Alwar could have received the same and why it was forwarded to SLSC after more than 45 days;. (2) The Tax Board will also verify the correctness with reference to the actual production having commenced on March 26, 1995;. (3) The Tax Board will also consider the judgment in the case of Lokendra Industries v. State reported in [1993] 89 STC 277 (Raj), relied on by the Tax Board, which has been reversed by the honourable apex court in the case of State of State of Rajasthan v. Gopal Oil Mills reported in [1999] 115 STC 25 (SC);. [1999] 4 SCC 368 and in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Mahaveer Oil Industries reported in [1999] 115 STC 29 (SC);. [1999] 4 SCC 357 and its impact on the facts of the instant case;. (4) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
