TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1958X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was enacted. As the policy is not so far withdrawn, it can be concluded that the benefits ordered therein are liable to be granted. The proclamation of Ext.P9 policy decision in 2008, specifically intended for the Special Economic Zone, is not disputed; it is not modified or withdrawn so far, as evident from Ext.P12 letter as well as the counter affidavit. The reason for denying the benefit conferred/declared in clause 6 of Ext.P9 policy, is the absence of a corresponding notification incorporating the same, by Government - The judgment of the apex court in LLOYD ELECTRIC AND ENGINEERING LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS [ 2015 (9) TMI 370 - SUPREME COURT] is in respect of an issue which is more or less similar to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... policy on 17.06.2003, as per Ext.P2 order based on which Ext.P3 notification was issued on 13.02.2004 under section 10 of the KGST Act, exempting the industrial undertakings and other establishments, trading units and developers in the Special Economic Zones within Kerala, from payment of tax payable under the KGST Act,1963 with effect from 01.07.2003. While the petitioners' unit was thus enjoying the benefit of exemption from payment of sales tax,the Kerala Value added Taxt (VAT) Act came into force from 01.04.2005, in the place of KGST Act, 1963. 3. The petitioners submit that they were under the bonafide impression that there was no change in the policy of Government consequent to the new enactment and that they could continue to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring Ltd. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others : (2016) 1 SCC 560, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that respondents cannot go back from the promise held out to them by proclaiming the policy and that they are bound to grant them exemption accordingly. 8. The petitioners have produced Ext.P12 letter dated 13.06.2014, between the Secretaries of the Department of Industries and Department of Taxes regarding the implementation of Ext.P9 policy, wherein the Secretary to the Industries Department requested the Secretary of Taxes Department to issue necessary notifications for giving exemptions to the units in SEZ in line with SEZ policy 2008, granting exemption from KVAT Act. 9. The Government have not fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notifications by Government. 11. In Nestle India's case (supra) the apex court was considering a case where the then Chief Minister of Punjab made an announcement that purchase tax on milk and milk products was abolished in the State. The Finance Minister had also made a speech in tune with that. But the benefit was denied for want of a legislation. The apex court held that the Government cannot deny them the benefit on the ground that no legislation was enacted following the said announcement. 12. In Llyod Electric and Engineering Ltd.'s case (supra), relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the apex court was considering a case regarding exemption under the Sales Tax Act/VAT Act where also Cabinet decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l to show that it was accepted by the parliament; on the other hand a particular tariff was provided in it for such goods, in the Finance Act passed thereafter. Referring to the statutory provisions under which power to grant any exemption are to be exercised and the manner in which notifications granting exemption are to be issued, the apex court held that budget proposals are not the enactments by Parliament and after the Finance Act is passed by Parliament and a rate of duty is prescribed in relation to a particular tariff head that alone would be the authoritative expression of the legislative will of Parliament. It was held that the Department cannot be compelled to implement the proposals announced by the Ministers, in the absence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overnment had been granting certain concessions and exemptions in order to promote the entrepreneurs and they had been enjoying exemption from tax under the repealed Act. The respondents are fully aware of the policy declared in Ext.P9 and there cannot be any dispute over it, as evident from the correspondence between the Departments of Industries and that of Commercial Taxes in Exts.P12 and P13 letters produced along with I.A.No.6615 of 2018. The only reason to deny the benefit is that corresponding notification has not been issued. When the Government is encouraging the Special Economic Zone, it is only just and proper that the policy announced by the Government is allowed to be implemented. 16. In the judgment in Nestle India's ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
