Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Punjab Alkalies and Chemicals Limited Versus Government of Punjab and others

2016 (8) TMI 716 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Issuance of eligibility certificate for availing the benefit of exemption from payment of tax - Extension of eligibility period Held that:- The exemption certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner on 3.1.2001. At that stage, the petitioner did not raise any plea regarding extending the period of eligibility from the date of issuance of eligibility or exemption certificates, rather, the conduct of the petitioner shows that it was not interested in availing the benefits. As is evident from .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nefit to that company, there is a provision made in the Rules. This court in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction cannot direct the authorities to frame the Rules. - Writ petition dismissed. - CWP No. 3847 of 2014 (O&M) - Dated:- 10-8-2016 - MR. RAJESH BINDAL AND MR. HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, JJ. For The Petitioner : Mr. Arun Nehra & Mr. Sant Kashyap, Advocates For The Respondent : Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab Rajesh Bindal J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present pet .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed Punjab Government Company. PSIDC holds 44% shares of the petitioner-company. New Industrial Policy, 1996 (hereinafter described as the 1996 Policy ) was notified by the Government on 20.3.1996, which provided for various benefits to the new industrial units as well as the industrial units expanding their capacity. The petitionercompany was incorporated in the year 1975 and came into commercial production on 30.1.1984. After the 1996 Policy was notified, the petitioner after making huge invest .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion on 18.12.1998, it applied for issuance of eligibility certificate on 4.6.1999, which was granted on 22.9.2000 effective from 18.12.1998 for a period of 120 months or till such time the maximum amount of exemption is availed of, whichever is earlier. Thereafter, application was filed for grant of exemption certificate, which was granted on 3.1.2001. The petitioner started availing the benefit of exemption from payment of tax on 1.4.2003 and during the period of eligibility could avail of bene .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

me line. The issue was considered in the meeting held under the Chairmanship of the then Chief Secretary on 13.1.2010 and it was decided that PSIDC should move a case for extension. Thereafter, PSIDC made a request on 11/26.2.2010 to the Financial Commissioner, Department of Excise & Taxation. PSIDC vide communication dated 3.6.2010 conveyed the petitioner that request for extension of period was rejected by the Department of Excise and Taxation vide memo dated 24.5.2010. Challenging the sam .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.12.2013. 4. Impugning the aforesaid communication, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is specified period provided under the Rules for issuance of eligibility certificate and the exemption certificate after the application is filed. The petitioner had fulfilled all the pre-requisite conditions for issuance of eligibility certificate, but still the authorities delayed issuance thereof and as a result, the petitioner could not avail of the benefit to the extent of its entitle .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o extension for that period. The provisions of the Rules also envisage issuance of provisional eligibility and exemption certificates. Those should have been adhered to. He further referred to the fact that in similar circumstances, M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., was granted extension. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that once the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to avail of its appropriate remedy, 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

r in appeal. The appellate authority remitted the matter back to the competent authority on 23.12.1999 giving liberty to the petitioner to supply the requisite documents. It was thereafter that the petitioner fulfilled the requisite conditions and was issued eligibility certificate on 22.9.2000. The validity thereof as per the provisions of the Rules was from the date of production for a period of 10 years or till such time the petitioner avails of the maximum amount of benefit admissible i.e., .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e of issuance of exemption certificate. During this period, the petitioner collected the tax and deposited with the Government. The period of eligibility expired on 18.12.2008. Immediately after the eligibility and exemption certificates were issued to the petitioner, it did not raise the issue regarding the date of entitlement, as the certificates clearly mentioned that the same were valid from the date of production. It was strictly in terms of the provisions of the Rules. First representation .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

petition impugning the rejection of the claim of the petitioner has not been explained at all. Thereafter, again without availing the statutory remedy as provided for under the Act against the orders passed by the authorities, the petitioner thought of filing fresh representation only, which was again rejected vide communication dated 17.12.2013. 7. The submission is that firstly there is no provision under the Rules, which provide for extension of period of eligibility. The Rules strictly prov .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e of eligibility certificate was rejected on account of non-compliance of the requisite formalities. Thereafter, when the exemption certificate was issued, the petitioner did not start availing the benefit for a period of more than two years. Further, when request of the petitioner for extension in period of eligibility was rejected, the communication was impugned by filing a writ petition more than three years thereafter. The case of M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. is different, as there i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

paper book. 9. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that expanded capacity of the petitioner to manufacture caustic soda came into commercial production on 18.12.1998. As per the provisions of the Rules, the petitioner applied for issuance of eligibility certificate for availing the benefit of exemption from payment of tax. The application was initially rejected as the petitioner failed to fulfil the requirements provided for under the Rules. In appeal, the order was set aside and the matte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ption certificates, rather, the conduct of the petitioner shows that it was not interested in availing the benefits. As is evident from the fact that exemption certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner on 3.1.2001, but for the reasons best known to the petitioner, it started availing the benefit only from 1.4.2003, after a gap of more than two years. 10. Though earlier Chairman of the petitioner-company, who was none else than the Secretary of the Department of the Industries, Govt. of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the clear provisions of the Rules, the same was rejected vide communication dated 24.5.2010. It was conveyed to PSIDC as well as the petitioner. The petitioner kept quiet and was satisfied with the decision so conveyed, though at that time the petitioner could have availed of its statutory remedy under the Act. For the first time, CWP No. 15831 of 2013 was filed in this court impugning the communication dated 3.6.2010, more than three years thereafter. There is no explanation for this delay. Th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version