9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uary 8, 2007 (annexure 13) and demand notice dated May 19, 2008/May 14, 2008 (annexure 15A Colly) be declared to be wrong, arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and be quashed and set aside; (ii) the application dated December 13, 2000 (annexure 12) submitted by the petitioner-company to the SLSC for review/ reconsideration of its decision and enhancement of EFCI of petitioner-company to the extent of Rs. 396.72 crores, be declared to have been deemed to have been accepted by SLSC from the expiry of stipulated period of 90 days from the date of filing thereof on December 13, 2000; (iii) the petitioner-company be held to be entitled to EFCI to the extent of Rs. 396.72 crores under the Incentive Scheme; (iv) alternatively, the matter be remanded to the SLSC for consideration/reconsideration of petitioner-company's application dated December 13, 2000 for enhancement of EFCI to the extent of Rs. 396.72 crores and meanwhile the petitioner-company be allowed to continue to avail of incentive of 75 per cent under the deferment scheme and the respondent be restrained from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner-company for recovery of disputed amount of tax of Rs. 116.25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecover the amount from the petitioner by coercive means. Having considered the matter it is directed that in the meanwhile, the respondents are restrained from recovery of the amount from the petitioner on the condition that the petitioner deposits 50 per cent of the demand as it exists today by July 31, 2008 and further submits a solvent security to the satisfaction of the recovery/assessing officer for the balance 50 per cent amount by July 31, 2008. In case the petitioner fails to comply the respondents are free to proceed against the petitioner. The writ petition shall be heard subject to the compliance of the above two conditions. Put up on 4th August 2008." The matter came up before the court on August 4, 2008 as directed on July 1, 2008 and the case was adjourned after deciding the application submitted by the petitioner being Application No. 25612 dated July 28, 2008 which was not pressed by the petitioner and the said application was disposed of by this court. Thereafter, the respondents sought time to file reply and the case was last listed before the court on November 9, 2009 and then it was not listed before the court till the application was filed by the learned Adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion then it ought to have been sent/addressed to the Commissioner, Industries, who is the Member Secretary of SLSC. Not only this, a perusal of the application clearly indicates that it nowhere states that it is a review application under clause 5A of the Scheme. In the entire body of the writ petition the petitioner-unit has been harping about its application remaining pending since the year 2000 and because of the fact that no decision has been taken on the application, therefore, it is to be deemed that the application stands allowed. It is most respectfully submitted that the application not only suffers from glaring defects, the same is hopelessly misconceived as well, for the reason that the petitioner-unit ought to have challenged the decision dated November 20, 2000 by way of filing an application before the Tax Board. Since the application was misplaced, filed under a wrong pretext and addressed to the wrong authority, therefore no decision could be taken on the aforementioned application. The petitioner-unit is now attempting to benefit out of a wrong committed by them more than seven years ago. In the entire body of the writ petition the petitionerunit has not indicated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n December 13, 2000 and the learned Advocate-General on the basis of the above submitted that, had there been any review application dated December 13, 2000, reference of the same would have found place in the letter dated December 1, 2006 which is missing. Therefore, in the communication dated February 8, 2007 reference to the review being filed beyond 60 days is in respect of the letter/representation dated December 1, 2006. I have considered the aforesaid submissions. With a view to appreciate the submissions made at Bar, it would be appropriate to extract para 5A of the Scheme of the Rajasthan Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme, 1989 as the controversy can be easily decided in the light of the provision. For ready reference, Para 5A of the Scheme of 1989 is reproduced below: "5A. Review and reconsideration.-(i) The industrial unit, the Commissioner, or any office authorised by him in this behalf, or assessing authority may, before the expiry of the period prescribed for preferring appeal, apply to the Screening Committee, for reconsideration or review of the order passed by the Screening Committee. (ii) When an application is made for reconsideration or review it shall be dispos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a mandamus that the said review dated December 13, 2000 is deemed to have been decided as allowed. A reading of clause (ii) and the proviso does not show that there is any mention of deemed acceptance or refusal. On the contrary, it is a mandate that the reviewing authority shall decide within 90 days, if not it can further extend this period on sufficient cause being shown by a further period of 90 days and no more. In case no decision is taken on the review within this period the reviewing authority shall cease to have jurisdiction over the matter and it cannot extend the timelimit beyond 90 + 90 days. In the light of what has been held above, even assuming that the petitioner had filed the review application on December 13, 2000, after the lapse of 180 days the reviewing authority would have no jurisdiction to decide the same. In that view of the matter, the reliefs which have been claimed in the writ petition and more particularly relief No. 2 cannot be allowed as there is no specific provision for deemed acceptance and in absence of any such provision this prayer cannot be allowed. The alternate prayer of remand too cannot be accepted as the outer-limit of the 180 days perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
