9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It set up an industrial unit in Visakhapatnam district for the manufacture and sale of plywood, panels, flush doors, etc. In addition to its manufacturing activity, the petitioner also carries on trading activity in the aforesaid goods. The State Government extended incentives to the petitioner, under G.O. Ms. No. 108, dated May 20, 1996 and G.O. Ms. No. 134, dated July 1, 1996, by way of a final eligibility certificate dated May 28, 2004 whereby the petitioner was entitled for tax deferment of Rs. 59,10,440 in a seven year duration commencing from March 29, 2000 till March 28, 2007. As on April 1, 2005, the petitioner had availed of tax deferment benefit of Rs. 22,05,048, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should be adjusted first against the output tax payable by the petitioner's manufacturing unit, and the balance alone should be utilised for adjustment against the output tax payable on their trading activity. The petitioner filed objections contending that, if the entire output tax of their trading activity relatable to assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07 for Rs. 47.43 lakhs and Rs. 58.15 lakhs, respectively, was first adjusted with the input-tax credit of Rs. 61.61 lakhs and Rs. 68.03 lakhs, respectively, the petitioner would be entitled to utilize the tax deferment available to its manufacturing unit for the remaining balance of Rs. 37.05 lakhs. The petitioner pointed out that the method adopted by them did not fall foul of either t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he legislative intent the procedure adopted by the Department was rational, more so as the object of tax legislation is to raise revenue. The 1st respondent would further submit that, if there had been a converse situation, the petitioner would not have any qualms about being denied the said benefit; though there was no specific rule, a rational approach had to be adopted keeping in view the object of the statute, and the intention of the Legislature; and no part of a statute could be rendered ineffective. Both in the order of assessment, and in the counter-affidavit, the first respondent admits that there is no specific rule providing for the manner in which he had assessed the petitioner to tax. Under article 265 of the Constitution of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
