TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lose the business, after availing the benefit of exemption. Most of the suppliers of the appellant were in Delhi and it cannot be presumed that such activities totally stopped in Delhi. The demand of the product is much more. The reasons given by the appellant were held to be not beyond its control so as to be covered under the proviso to Rule 28A (11) of the HGST Rules, 1975. In Priti fan s case, the appellant-unit suffered due to the floods directly as well as indirectly due to over all loss of economic activity in the vast flood affected region in and around Rohtak. The appeal was allowed and it was held that the adverse effects of the floods cannot be underestimated which appeared to have delivered the final crushing blow to the viability of the Unit. It was opined that the Unit, tiny as it was since its inception, deserve the benefit of first proviso to Rule 28A (11B). 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 the tune of Rs. 68, 24,000/- for a period of nine years. This fact in itself shows that there was loss in busines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e were three other manufacturers of Polypropylene Multifilament Yarn only in northern India. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Sonepat passed an order dated 20.10.2002 for cancellation of Exemption/Entitlement Certificate for discontinuance of business by the unit during the currency of Exemption Period. It was observed in the order that the business was closed after availing the benefit of exemption. The appellant then preferred an appeal before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (A), Rohtak against order dated 20.10.2002 and the same was accepted, vide order dated 29.11.2002. However, the department was given liberty to proceed in accordance with law. However, the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Sonepat treated the case as 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 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant 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 existing set-up but the circumstances were beyond the control of the unit, during the currency of the exemption period itself. To give force to its contentions, learned counsel for the appellant is relying upon the below mentioned judgments:- 1. Jasson Pharma Pvt. Ltd, Gohana vs. State of Haryana, (2009) 34 PHT 54 (HTT) 2. M/s Simra Chemical Industries, Sampla District Rohtak vs. State of Haryana, STI 2006 Haryana Tribunal 79. 3. Mukand Singh and Sons, E-20, Industrial Area, Yamuna Nagar vs. State of Haryana, STI 2006 Haryana Tribunal 83 4. Priti Fan, Rohtak vs. State of Haryana, (2009) 34 PHT 96 (HTT) On the other hand, learned State counsel has argued that the impugned orders passed by the authorities are not liable to be set aside, as the petitioner had set up unit and was bound by the eligibility conditions as laid down in the Exemption Certificate. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. It is not in dispute that the appellant was granted benefit of exempti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to over all loss of economic activity in the vast flood affected region in and around Rohtak. The appeal was allowed and it was held that the adverse effects of the floods cannot be underestimated which appeared to have delivered the final crushing blow to the viability of the Unit. It was opined that the Unit, tiny as it was since its inception, deserve the 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 automatically result in payment of tax and interest as there is also a proviso to Rule 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
