9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous dispute raised by the Department is that, well within the time the petitioner applied for being granted eligibility certificate to the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (the Commission for short) and all procedures in this respect were completed well before 31st March, 2006. The Commission also issued such eligibility certificate on 29th October, 2007 for the period between 25th December, 2005 to 24th December, 2008. On the basis of such certificate, the petitioner was eligible for and granted value added tax exemption. However, by communication dated 3rd October, 2009, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax conveyed to the petitioner that the certificates of exemption granted to the petitioner are cancelled because the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel, Shri Uchit Sheth, for the petitioner submitted that the requirement that the eligibility certificate must be issued before 1st April, 2006 from the Commission is not inviolable. In any case, the petitioner had applied well in time. Merely because, the Commission has issued such certificate after some delay would not dis-entitle the petitioner from seeking tax benefit. The certificate which was issued on 29th October, 2007 was operative between 25th December, 2005 to 24th December, 2008 and would thus act retrospectively. 5. On the other hand, learned AGP, Shri Patel, opposed the petition contending that the Tribunal has given detailed reasons. The petitioner had not fulfilled essential eligibility condition. 6. The Government circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commission to grant such certificate expeditiously. If for some reason, however, the Commission fails to act promptly, consumes time beyond the reasonable and thereby delays the process of issuing such a certificate, could it be stated that mere delay in issuance of such certificate by the Commission should be fatal to the petitioner's claim for exemption? The answer being obvious has to be in negative. 8. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner did not apply for such certificate in time or did not fulfill the requirements of the Commission to enable the Commission to grant such certificate within the time. The Tribunal's presumption to the contrary is not borne out from the record. It is not even the case of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
