TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Allahabad High Court in the case of Anand Gramodyog Samiti v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [2005 (5) TMI 613 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and the Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Peermade Tea Co. Ltd. [1994 (10) TMI 23 - KERALA High Court] also came to the conclusion. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the above judgments, looking to the purpose, objective and intention of the Notification No. 394 dated March 24, 2005 it is held that the notification is retrospective in operation and applicable to all matters pending and it is clear that the petitioner is entitled to claim benefits of the notification. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner fulfils all the criteria laid down in this notification. Since, the subsequent notification dated March 24, 2005 bearing SO No. 394, was not available before the Tax Board, therefore, the matter is being remitted back to the Tax Board, who will consider the same afresh in the light of the aforesaid notification in accordance with law. If the terms and conditions specified in the notification stand complied with by the petitioner, the claim deserv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... District Industries Center, Jaipur, on March 26, 2002 with effect from April 1, 1998. Finding no alternative, the petitioner moved an application for revival of the sick unit and also moved an application simultaneously to shift the industrial unit from village Norangpura, Tehsil, Sambhar District, Jaipur to B-228 Route No. 9, VKIA Jaipur. The petitioner was directed to obtain NOC from RIICO and also from other authorities and finally the RIICO granted permission to the petitioner to shift the unit on October 29, 2002. The petitioner thereafter, moved another application to the General Manager, District Industries Center, Jaipur and State Level Screening Committee for availing of the incentive granted earlier under sales tax for the balance period and mentioned the facts reiterated before the various authorities. However, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the District Level Screening Committee in this regard vide order dated March 6, 2003. 5. A review petition was also filed by the petitioner before the District Level Screening Committee, reiterating the facts and also submitted the facts that as there was no change in the name and title of the company or in the manag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... centive once granted to the company on account of establishment of new industrial unit, should have been allowed till the entire period and it should not have been denied only on the ground of shifting of the industry from one place to another. He further submitted that similar situation was faced by other industries and many representations were made/ sent by other units, almost on identical facts and circumstances, like the case of the present petitioner and the State Government vide its order dated March 24, 2005 issued a Notification No. S.O. 394 dated March 24, 2003 whereby directed that a registered dealer manufacturing goods in the State who shifts his industry as a whole from one place in the State to another place would be entitled to avail the un-availed part of the benefits conferred on it by any notification issued under the said section. Therefore, when the State Government allowed the benefit on the same facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, this should be treated as having retrospective operation and thus pleaded to allow this petition. 7. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner fulfils all the criteria laid down in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere facing problems relating to irregular/defective supply of power, non-availability of skilled labourers and also lack of infrastructure facility which was not envisaged by the petitioner and others therefore, on account of several representations, from different corners the Government of Rajasthan issued a notification bearing No. 394 dated March 24, 2005 and the same is quoted hereinbelow: Finance Departments Tax Division Notification Jaipur, March 24,2005 SO. 394.-In exercise of the powers conferred by section 15 and sub-section (3) of section 25 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (Rajasthan Act No. 22 of 1995) read with sub-section (5) of section 8 and section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act No. 74 of 1956), the State Government being of the opinion that it is expedient in the public interest so to do, hereby allows a registered dealer manufacturing goods in the State who shift his industry in whole from one place in the State to another place, to avail the unavailed part of the benefits conferred on it by any notification issued under the said sections, subject to the following conditions: 1. that there shall not be any change in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Collector, Central Excise, Shilong v. Wood Craft Products Ltd. [1995] 3 SCC 454 again came to the same conclusion and it was observed by the honourable apex court that representation was made by the various industries and on being satisfied, the Central Government issued a clarificatory Notification No. 95/94 on April 25, 1994 therefore, though the notification was new but clarifies the position and made the position explicit which was implicit. 13. The honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Incometax v. Gold Coin Health Food P. Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 308 (SC) has held that the circumstances under which the amendment was brought in existence and the consequences of the amendment will have to be taken care of while deciding the issue as to whether the amendment was clarificatory or substantive in nature and, whether it will have retrospective effect or it was not so. 14. The honourable apex court in the case of Zile Singh v. State of Haryana [2004] 8 SCC 1 observed as follows: It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have a retrospective op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
