Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

SRF Ltd., Indore Special Economic Zone Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others

2016 (5) TMI 1236 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Re-assessment proceedings - Imposition of tax - Period prior to 2013 - Period after 2013, petitioner himself started paying tax - claiming exemption from tax on sales effected under SEZ policy announced by the State of M.P. - Held that:- by considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar Vs. Dunlop India Ltd. and others [1984 (11) TMI 63 - SUPREME Court], as the huge amount of more than ₹ 98.18 crores is dues against the p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 petitioner company has established an industrial unit in Indore Special Economic Zone Pithampur, District-Dhar, in the year 2003. Petitioner company submitted its return for the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Section 13 of the Indore SEZ Act, 2003. 4. Similarly returns were submitted for the periods 2005-06 and 2006-07. 5. The case of State of M.P. that the assessing authority while passing orders in the aforesaid cases erroneously accepted the claim of the petitioner that the sales effected by his SEZ unit are non- taxable sales being export sales as provided under Section 13 of M.P. SEZ Act, 2003. Thereafter, these cases were re-examined and it was found that the exemption allowed by the assessing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd 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 pray .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

an objection was raised by learned Senior Counsel for the State and submitted that one hundred crores are outstanding against the petitioner and till today, the matter has not been heard finally. We after hearing learned Counsel for the parties directed the office to list all the three writ petitions for analogous hearing for further orders on stay on 7.4.2016. On 7.4.2016, we granted liberty to the respondents/State Nos. 1 to 3 to file an application for vacating stay as the matter was not list .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

etitioner is paying additional countervailing duty/SAD, 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 sa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eason than that a prima facie case has been made out, without being concerned about the balance of convenience, the public interest and a host of other relevant considerations. In the matter of Dunlop India Ltd. (supra) a Bank Guarantee was furnished in lieu of the tax. The Apex Court has held that no government business or for that matter no business of any kind can be run on mere Bank Guarantee. Liquid cash is necessary for the running of a Government as indeed any other enterprise and prays t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lication for vacating stay is nothing but a prayer for review of earlier orders passed by this Court from time to time. The same is not maintainable as there is no error apparent on the face of the record because every time the stay was granted in the presence of learned Counsel for the State and present 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 payi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version