Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (11) TMI 1141

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssessing Officer has himself assessed the capital investment. The learned counsel appearing of the revisionist has taken us to the order passed by the Assessing Officer and the Tribunals. A careful reading of all the orders reveal that the total capital investment has never been assessed by any Committee as envisaged under Condition No.1 of the Notification referred to above. Thus, it is clear that the law governing the field provided for the assessment of the capital investment by a Committee whereas the same has never been done in this case. It is trite that if the law provides that a particular procedure has to be followed while deciding an issue or a lis before the authorities then the procedure should be followed according to the la .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... financial year 2010-11 onwards) after the Capital Investment of Plant and Machinery, having exceeded R. 25 Crores in it s Unit-1, as on 18.03.2010, is erroneous in the facts of this case? 3. Facts of the case are not much in dispute at this stage. The State of Uttarakhand had issued an Industrial Policy Vision Note in the year 2001, whereby in order to create a conducive environment of rapid and ecological sustainable industrial development in the State, the Government of Uttarakhand invited setting of Small and Medium industries on selective basis. The policy also envisages providing a concessional rate to such industries of 1% CST as against 4% (later on revised to 2%) to the manufacturers registered in the State under the CST Act. I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ry making it eligible for reduced rate of 1% of CST fixed and revised its policy decision vide Notification No. 822 issued on 03.07.2004, by virtue of which, the investment limit was raised to less than 25 crores. However, the said Notification did not specify any date for applicability of the amended Notification No. 822, which leaves the question to be decided whether it shall be effective from the date of the initial Notification No. 6222 dated 25.07.2001. 6. The revisionist set on its unit no.1 and thereafter started production sometime in the year 2004 and made its first sale on 19.12.2004, that is much after the Notification No. 822 issued on 03.07.2004. Initially the planted machinery outlay of the unit was 2.84 crore rupees, whic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd Machinery of the unit no.1 exceeds Rs. 25 crores as on 18.03.2010 and, therefore, the Notification No. 822 dated 03.07.2004 issued by the Government of Uttarakhand on the Central Tax be applicable at the Rate of 2 % of the said unit of the revisionist. 7. The Revisionist filed the 2nd Appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand. This Tribunal vide order dated 16.06.2007, dismissed the Second Appeal upholding the order passed by the Assessment Officer and the Appellate Authority. 8. For the purpose of this case, the relevant condition that is required by the State of Uttarakhand to be complied is the condition no.1 in the Notification dated 25th July, 2001 bearing no. 622 of 2001, reads as follows: (1) the sales are made .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ticular procedure has to be followed while deciding an issue or a lis before the authorities then the procedure should be followed according to the law established and not otherwise. 11. In this connection, we rely upon the following precedent: In the case of Hussein Ghadially vs. State of Gujarat, (2014) 8SCC 425, the Hon ble Apex Court in para 19 has held that: 19. Thirdly, because if the Statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner alone. All other modes or methods of doing that thing must be deemed to have been prohibited. That proposition of law first was stated in Taylor v. Taylor (1876) 1 Ch. D426 and adopted later by the Judicial Committee in Nazir Ahmed v. Kin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates