New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

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

2016 (8) TMI 716 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT - 2017 (345) E.L.T. 71 (P & H) - 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 petiti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

case of M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. cannot be compared as for granting the benefit 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. Adv .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Development Corporation Limited (for short, 'PSIDC'), which is wholly owned 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

capital investment. After the unit of the petitioner came into commercial production 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 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

also made a request to the Principal Secretary, Department of Industries in the same 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 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

s and Commerce for the same relief, which was rejected vide communication dated 17.12.2013. 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gibility certificate after the application was filed, the petitioner is entitled to 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 wa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ner failed to complete the requirements. The order was challenged by the petitioner 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 .....

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 been serious, it would have claimed the benefit immediately from the date 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 product .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to avail of any other remedy in accordance with law. The delay in filing the writ 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 Ru .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as not interested in availing the benefits, as firstly the application for issuance 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 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

te now to grant benefits. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 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 requireme .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tending 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 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, w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ake, but still as the request of the petitioner could not be acceded to in view of 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. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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