TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asts an obligation of production of form C in respect of transactions which take place subsequent to that amendment. If a person availed of that exemption without production of form C in respect of transactions after the 2002 Amendment, he is liable for such action as may be permissible by law which includes section 28(1) of the Act. W.P. dismissed - W.P. Nos. 11427, 11428 of 2008 & W.P. Nos. 18567 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 7-2-2012 - SUSHIL HARKAULI ACTG. C.J. AND KAUSHAL T.K., J. Under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, an exemption in respect of inter-State sales was granted by the Government by a notification dated February 19, 1991. The exemption was in respect of certain industries and was available subject to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. v. Electricity Inspector ETIO reported in [2008] 10 RC 426; [2007] 5 SCC 447, and also upon paragraph 18 in SCC (para 19 in 148 STC 225) of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M.R.F Limited v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sales Tax reported in [2006] 148 STC 225 (SC); [2006] 8 SCC 702. These two paragraphs of the two law reports are being quoted below for ready reference: 100. We are also unable to agree with Mr. Andhyarujina that exemption from tax is a mere concession defeasible by the Government and does not confer any accrued right to the recipient. Right of exemption with a valid notification issued gives rise to an accrued right. It is a vested right. Such right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2007] 5 SCC 447 it has been expressly stated by the Supreme Court that . . . when a right is accrued or vested, the same can be taken away only by reason of a statute and not otherwise. In the case of M.R.F Limited [2006] 148 STC 225 (SC); [2006] 8 SCC 702 it was a case of revocation by change of industrial policy and not by a statute, therefore, both the decisions do not apply. There is no good ground for questioning the legislative competence to prescribe conditions subject to which the exemption can be availed for future transactions. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment by section 152 of the Finance Act, 2002 has been applied with retrospective effective is not correct. The said Financ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid decision we are unable to agree with the learned counsel's understanding of the said decision of the Allahabad High Court. In fact on the question of applicability of the new condition to the post-2002 amendment transactions was conceded in favour of the State. The only question which survived and was decided by the Allahabad High Court was about whether the monetary limit given under the original exemption survived, and if so whether the tax liability under the enhanced rate (occasioned due to non-production of form C was liable to be set off against that limit. That question does not arise at this stage before us. No other contention has been pressed. In view of what has been stated above, we do not find any merit in these writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
