9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etorship concern and is registered with HGST Act, 1973 as well as under CST Act, 1956 during the relevant period. The appellant concern was having its residence and permanent addresss as 24/45, Punjab Bagh (West) New Delhi, as disclosed with the department of Sales Tax. The appellant was issued Exemption Certificate for sales tax exemption on sale of Polypropylene Filament Yarn from 14.8.1991 to 13.08.1998 for an amount of Rs. 68, 24,200/- Lacs by the Lower Level Screening Committee, Sonepat. Thereafter the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Sonepat, issued Exemption Certificate to the appellant. However, the firm could avail benefit of only for Rs. 24,858 under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 and Rs. 5,97,972 under the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Remand Case" and then decided the case under another provision i.e Rule 28 (11) (a) (1) of Rule 28A of Haryana GST Rules, 1975, vide order dated 10.03.2003 (A-2). The appellant preferred appeal against this order before Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (A), Rohtak, which was also dismissed on 23.08.2006. The appellant then approached the Haryana Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh and vide order dated 29.06.2009 (A-4) the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the First Appellate Authority for decision after dealing with all the issues raised before him in accordance with law. On remand, the First Appellate Authority vide order dated 7.5.2010 (Annexure A-5) rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the first Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Fabrics i.e. the finished goods for which the appellant was manufacturing the raw material and hence the demand of appellant's product came to zero as it lost the market. The other 3 plants also stopped production of Nylon Filament yarn and started manufacturing Narrow Woven Fabrics since these were not availing the benefit of exemption and today the whole of the trade is in a very bad shape. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Eligibility Certificate was issued to the company on from 14.8.91 to 13.8.98 for 68, 24,200/- and during this period the appellant could avail the benefit of RS. 6, 22,830/-. This itself is sufficient to explain that there was no malafide intention on the part of the unit to stop production in ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity, Sonepat regarding computation of amount of tax benefit availed of by the assessee during the exemption period and the interest chargeable thereon reveals that the assessee had been availing of substantial amount of tax benefit in the last assessment years of 1996-97 and 1997-98 of the exemption period, particularly under the CST Act. However, suddenly after expiry of the exemption period, the assessee admittedly stopped production in its unit. It was further observed that if the assessee was able to sell its produce till the end of exemption period, the demand of the said product could not suddenly become zero immediately after the expiry of the exemption period. If the assessee had continued production in the post exemption period at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e benefit of first proviso to Rule 28A (11B). In Jasson Pharma's case (supra), the appellant was granted exemption from payment of tax for nine years by DETC (Appeals) Rotak. The sales of the unit started declining from assessment year 1997-98 onwards and it did not maintain average production level for preceding five years. The unit ultimately stopped production w.e.f 01.07.1998. The appellant was held to have violated the provisions of sub Rule 11 (a) of Rule 28A of Rules, 1975 and thus rendered himself liable to make payment of tax benefit availed by its together with interest. His appeal was dismissed by the Joint Commissioner. However, the appeal was allowed before the Tribunal and it was held that Violation of Rule 11 (a) does not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verage level of production became an impossibility for him on account of these reasons. It was a case governed only by Rule 28A (11) (a) (i) and not by rule 28A (8) (a) (i) of the 1975 Rules. So, this appeal is allowed, the orders of the authorities are set aside and the case is remanded to the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Rohtak for examining the case of the dealer in the light of the aforesaid grounds and pass fresh order. If the dealer is able to establish these grounds, withdrawal of "exemption certificate" will not take place then. In the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the appellant had availed the benefit of 6,22,830/- during the relevant period, he was granted the benefit of exemption from sales to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
