9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The petitioner before us was granted that exemption and the eligibility certificate requisite for the same and started availing of the exemption. In the year 2002 by section 152 of the Finance Act No. 20 of 2002, section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act was amended and the exemption was made subject to compliance of the conditions given in section 8(4). Production of form C for certain type of inter-State sales was one of the conditions of section 8(4). The petitioner continued to avail of the exemption after 2002, apparently without production of the form C. By the impugned order dated June 10, 2008, it has been directed that the cases where exemption has been claimed without furnishing form C after the amendment of 2002 should be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... away only by reason of a statute and not otherwise. Thus, a notification which was duly issued would continue to govern unless the same is repealed. 18. According to him, so far as SRO No. 1092 of 1999 is concerned, it did not confer any new right. It only preserved the existing right. By the said order what the Government did was to change the industrial policy and to do away with exemptions which were otherwise being given to new/existing industrial units, which was taken away with effect from January 1, 2000. At the same time, the units which had been set up pursuant to the incentives granted by the earlier notification had to be protected and accordingly it was provided that such units will continue to enjoy the incentives for their fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut 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. The petitioner then relied upon clause 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897. That section enumerates effect of repeal of a legislation, in respect of actions taken under the repealed enactment. Obviously it has no application to this case in view of what has already been discussed above. The amendment of 2002 has not repealed anything, it has merely prescribed additional requirement in respect of transactions done after that amendment. It is not altering the situation in respect of the transactions done under the unamended section. The reliance placed upon paragraph 23 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
