Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Dewas Soya Limited vs Commissioner Of Commercial Tax on 14 November, 2017
-1-
Tax Reference No.13/2017
Indore, dt. 14/11/2017
Mr. Sumit Nema, learned senior counsel with Mr. Gagan
Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Archana Kher, learned counsel for the respondent /
State.
This is a tax reference under Section 70(2)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 read with Section 13 of the Entry Tax Act, 1976 against the order dated 16/05/2017 passed by the M. P. Commercial Tax Appellate Board in Reference Case No.03/CTAB/IND/16, requiring the Board to make a reference to this Court.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that two issues were raised before the Board, however, the Board has referred only one question to this Court and the other question has not been referred to this Court.
Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has filed this application under Section 70(2)(b) of the Act seeking direction to the Board to refer the following questions for opinion:-
"Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate Board was justified in rejecting the claim of the appellant to adjust the liability of payment of purchase tax under Section 10B of the Act against cumulative quantum of tax benefit available to it under Notification No.(43) dated 06/06/1995 instead of creating the demand of tax on an exempted unit by distinguishing the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Vikram Woolens (2014) 24 STJ 678 and in the case of Balchand Jain Vs. State of M.P.?"
The Board, however, declined to refer the aforesaid question to this Court for being answered.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and we are of the opinion that the following question needs to be answered by this Court:-
"Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate Board was justified in rejecting the claim of the appellant to adjust the liability of payment of purchase tax -2- under Section 10B of the Act against cumulative quantum of tax benefit available to it under Notification No.(43) dated 06/06/1995 instead of creating the demand of tax on an exempted unit by distinguishing the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Vikram Woolens (2014) 24 STJ 678 and in the case of Balchand Jain Vs. State of M.P.?"
Accordingly, we direct the Board to state the case and refer it to this Court for being answered.
Let the aforesaid question, be referred by the Board. This tax reference stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
Certified Copy as per rules.
(S. C. SHARMA) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Tej
Tej Prakash Vyas
2017.11.21 16:09:26
-08'00'