TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in terms of the Proviso. Whether G.O.Ms.No.36/2000/F.2 dated 21.07.2000 would come to the aid and assistance of the appellant? - Held that:- The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.36/2000/F.2 dated 21.07.2000 explicitly states that the Government discontinued the exemption made in G.O.Ms.15/74/Fin.(CT) dated 25.06.1974 and G.O.Ms.164/86/F.6 dated 29.09.1986 which was in terms of G.O.Ms.No.35/99/F.2 dated 30.03.1999 - What is important to note is that G.O.Ms.No.36/2000/f.2 dated 21.07.2000 is not in supersession of G.O.Ms.No.35/99/F.2 dated 30.03.1999 and consequently, the correct manner to interpret the exemption notification is to hold that with effect from 01.04.1999 a new industry commencing production of Indian Made Foreign Liquor is not entitled for any exemption from payment of sales tax. Even assuming G.O.Ms.No.36/2000/F.2 dated 21.07.2000 is made applicable, the appellant having not started production within two years from 21.07.2000 is not entitled to any benefit. The appellant has not made out any case for interference with the orders passed in the writ petitions or against the assessment orders - Appeal dismissed. - W.A.Nos.595 to 598 of 2014, 926 and 927 of 2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion under the provisions of the PGST Act exempting the tax payable under the said Act on the turnover from the sales of goods manufactured by them in their industry located in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The Government of Pondicherry in exercise of its powers conferred under Sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the PGST Act and in supersession of G.O.Ms.No.6/74/Fin.(CT) dated 01.04.1974 exempted the tax payable under the said Act on the turnover from the sales of goods manufactured by the small scale industries which went into production on or after 06.11.1969 and all industries other than small scale industries which went into production on or after 01.04.1971 as certified by the Director of Industries, Pondicherry. The exemption in respect of the above said industries was effective and valid for a period of five years from the date of commencement of production vide notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.15/74/Fin.(CT) dated 25.06.1974. The Government of Pondicherry in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the PGST Act and in partial modification of the notification issued under G.O.Ms.No.15/74/Fin.(CT) dated 25.06.1974, the Government exempted all in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. Subsequently, since the assessee did not file the objections, the proposal in the show cause notices were confirmed and orders have been passed. These have been challenged by the appellant in the writ petitions. 7.Mr.N.Venkataraman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would fairly submit that the argument which he now proposes to advance before us by referring to G.O.Ms.No.36/2000/F.2 dated 21.07.2000 was not argued before the learned Single Bench, yet the appellant may be given an opportunity to go back to the Assessing officer and file its objections as the appellant has been able to gather a bunch of documents which clearly show that the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.36/2000/F.2 dated 21.07.2000 has been extended to an industry which is engaged in the manufacture of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and the appellant alone has been singled out. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel referred to the list of dates and events to show that the appellant had obtained the provisional certificate of registration from the Directorate of Industries, Pondicherry on 16.05.1996 after which they obtained permission from the Panchayat, applied for manufacturing license on 23.06.1998 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he facts and circumstances of the cases on hand. 10.Before we proceed to examine the correctness of the contentions raised by the learned counsels we need to add a caveat. We are called upon to examine the effect of an exemption notification. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court strict interpretation is to be given to an exemption notification, such interpretation shall lien in favour of the revenue. The Court cannot add words to an exemption notification and should construe the notification as it is and as worded. Bearing in mind this legal principle we proceed. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant argued for a remand of the matters to the Assessing officer for fresh consideration. We do not accept such a prayer for more than one reason. Firstly, the writ petition was of the year 2004. In one of the writ petitions, the appellant/petitioner prayed for a writ of Declaration to declare the second condition contained in G.O.Ms.No.35/99/F.2 dated 30.03.1999 as illegal and ultravires. Thus the learned Writ Court was called upon to rule on the declaratory relief prayed for. The appellant has been unsuccessful before the learned Writ Court. These appeals were p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red to be obtained under Section 12(d) of Pondicherry Excise Act, 1970 is the license to be obtained after completion of the entire infrastructure and when the Government Order states that the industry should have invested in infrastructure, it does not require obtaining such license under the Excise Act. The respondents resisted such contention by stating that in terms of Section 12(d) of the Excise Act, no construction or work in a distillery factory can be commenced without a license and the provisional certificate dated 16.05.1996 issued by the Directorate of Industries relied on by the appellant is only a provisional certificate of registration and not a license. In this regard, reference was made to Rule 247 of the Pondicherry Excise Rules, 1970 which prescribes the procedure for obtaining the license. 13.The learned Single Bench found that the functioning of the factory commenced only in 2003 and in terms of Section 12(d) of the Excise Act, no construction or a work in a distillery factory can be commenced without a license. Further, on perusal of the balance sheet of the Company, it was found that it did not disclose any expenditure with regard to the investment for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtain industries to avoid any loss or hardship that is likely to be caused by the restriction imposed by G.O.Ms.No.35. 14.The above finding rendered by the learned Writ Court would amply demonstrate that the appellant had pressed into service the effect of G.O.Ms.No.36.2000/F.2 dated 21.07.2000 before the learned Writ Court and was unsuccessful. Therefore, the appellant is not fully right in contending that the plea regarding applicability of G.O.Ms.No.36/2000/F.2dated 21.07.2000 was never canvassed before the learned Single Bench, probably was not canvassed in the form as put forth before us by Mr.N.Venkataraman. But the fact remains that the effect of G.O.Ms.No.36/2000/F.2 dated 21.07.2000 was analysed by the Writ Court and it ruled against the appellant. 15.On a careful examination of the reasons assigned by the learned Writ Court, it is clear that the appellant to be entitled for the benefit of Proviso should have obtained any license before 1st April 1999. As rightly held by the learned Writ Court, the provisional certificate issued by the Directorate of Industries, Government of Pondicherry is a provisional registration certificate registering the appellant as a small ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation shall come into force with immediate effect. 17.Mr.N.Venkataraman, learned Senior Counsel would vehemently contend that the appellant was an industry in the pipe line and it will be entitled for the incentive of exemption on the levy of sales tax on the turnover of sale of goods manufactured by them as they have been registered with the Industries Department, they own lands and buildings and they have also obtained assistance from Financial Institutions. Therefore, the appellant should be permitted to avail the benefit of exemption by placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.36/2000/F.2 dated 21.07.2000. 18.The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.36/2000/F.2 dated 21.07.2000 explicitly states that the Government discontinued the exemption made in G.O.Ms.15/74/Fin.(CT) dated 25.06.1974 and G.O.Ms.164/86/F.6 dated 29.09.1986 which was in terms of G.O.Ms.No.35/99/F.2 dated 30.03.1999. By virtue of the discontinuance of exemption new industries commencing production of Indian Made Foreign Liquor are not entitled for any sales tax exemption. The Proviso which has been added by G.O.Ms.No.36/2000/F.2 dated 21.07.2000 carves out a small exception for industries in pipe line. Even this exception ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
