TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd furnish Bank Guarantee for the remaining dues within a period of six weeks from today. - Stay granted partly. - Writ Petition No. 1421/2014, Writ Petition No. 1323/2015, Writ Petition No. 8845/2015 - - - Dated:- 12-5-2016 - P. K. Jaiswal And Vivek Rusia, JJ. For the Petitioner : A. K. Chitle, Vijay Tulsiyan For the Respondent : P. K. Saxena, Sunil Verma ORDER P. K. Jaiswal, J. Heard on I.A. No. 1610/2016 an application for further orders and I.A. No.1985/2016 (in W. P. No. 1421 of 2014), I.A. No. 1986/2016 (in W.P. No. 1323/2015) and I.A. No. 1987/2016 (in W.P. No. 8845/2015) applications for vacating stay. 2. For the sake of convenience the facts are being taken from the W.P. No. 1421 of 2014. 3. The p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exemption from tax on sales effected by his SEZ unit to dealer in DTA, but later he himself has started paying VAT tax and CST-on sales effected by it after February, 2013. 6. The stand of the State is that sales effected from SEZ to dealers in DTA in MP or dealers of DTA in other states have not been exempted from tax payable under the Vat Act or under the CST Act. By order of this Court they challenged all show cause notices and assessment orders by filing present writ petitions. On 24.3.2014, stay was granted by directing that the respondent shall not take any coercive steps in pursuance to the letter dated 31.01.2014. This Court while granting stay directed that the prayer for interim relief shall be considered after reply is filed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, he is liable to pay tax under the State Law. He submitted that as per notification dated 16th May, 2005, ACVD/SAD is payable only when there is exemption under the State Law and in the present case there is no exemption under the State Law. The petitioner is liable to pay tax under the State Law. He also submitted that now the petitioner himself started paying tax under the State Laws from March, 2013 and continuing paying the same. This fact has not been disputed by the petitioner and, therefore, the interim order of this Court be vacated. To support the contention he has drawn our attention to the decision of Apex Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar Vs. Dunlop India Ltd. and others reported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt application has been filed after the period of more than two years only on the ground that more than 98.18 crores is dues against the Company under the M.P. SEZ Act, 2003. The petitioner is paying tax to the Union Government. It is the dispute between the State and the Union and in case if it comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is liable to pay tax under the State Law then the amount which has been paid by the petitioner to the Union Government the same can be adjusted over the amount of Union Government, the State is not going to suffer in any way. To support the aforesaid contention he has drawn our attention to the decisions of Apex Court in the case of Benara Valves Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2006) 13 SCC 347 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
