9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed yarn texturizing unit in the year 1994-95 investing more than Rs. 1.25 crores. The unit was granted benefit of exemption under entry 255 of the notification dated 05.03.1992 by the State Government under exercise of powers under section 49(2) of the Sales Tax Act ('the Act' for short). Under such exemption scheme, the petitioner had incentive limit of Rs. 1,25,42,264/. Period of incentive was between 19.06.1994 to 18.06.2003. The exemption was subject to certain conditions contained in the said entry itself. One of them being condition no.16, which reads as under: "16. OTHER CONDITIONS (a) The eligible unit shall install and effectively operate and maintain pollution control measures as per the standards prescribed and approve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n order of assessment and granted benefit of exemption to the petitioner in connection with the assessed sale tax liability of Rs. 21.66 lacs (rounded off) against the remaining exemption limit of Rs. 52.30 lacs (rounded off) and thereby declared that the petitioner has leftover exemption limit of Rs. 33.66 lacs (rounded off). 5. This order of the Assessing Officer was taken in suomotu revision by the Commissioner of Sales Tax by issuing a show cause notice. Eventually, the Commissioner passed his revisional order on 21/22102010 and held that the petitioner was in breach of the condition of the sales tax exemption, since the petitioner discontinued the unit before the prescribed period. He therefore, held that the petitioner could not have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent dated 05.11.2015, in case of Atul Auto Limited v. State of Gujarat. The said judgment however, pertains to the liability of the dealers to pay additional tax when basic sale and purchase taxes were exempt. III. In case of Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and another v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in Vol 102 STC 157, in which the Division Bench of Bombay High Court held that the Commissioner could not levy interest while exercising revisional powers. 8. On the other hand, learned AGP Shri Vora opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner had breached the condition of exemption by virtue of condition No.17, therefore, the exemption would cease to operate. The Assessing Officer therefore could not have adjuste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
