Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
M/S Bindal Oil Mills Pvt L;Td vs District Level Sccreening Comm on 13 September, 2013
IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R (1) S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.2/2001 M/S.BINDAL OIL MILLS PVT.LTD,G.738- 739,PhaseII,Industrial Area., Bhiwadi (Alwar V/s. District Level Screening Committee, Alwar & Ors. (2) S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.27/2006 M/S. BINDAL OIL PVT. LTD, G.738 Industrial Area.Bhiwadi(RAJASTHAN) V/s. Commercial Taxes Officer, Bhiwadi Date of Order ::: 13/09/2013 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.K. RANKA. Mr. Vivek Singhal, for the petitioner/s Mr. P.K. Kasliwal, for the respondent/s
1. In the instant two Revision Petitions the petitioner-assessee has challenged the order passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board dated 16.03.2000 and 29.10.2005 respectively by which the order of the District Level Screening Committee (in short, 'DLSC') and Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) respectively were upheld, wherein DLSC held that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1987 and in subsequent revision petition, when claim was rejected by DLSC/Rajasthan Tax Board, the assessing officer-respondent did not grant benefits in regular assessment. It is submitted by the ld. counsel for the petitioner in STR No. 2/2001 that both the DLSC as well as Tax Board have in a summary manner decided the important facts and have not gone into the entire issue and not addressed the real issue when specific claim was there before the DLSC as well as Tax Board. It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioners that there was no occasion for the DLSC to withdraw the exemption retrospectively in respect of the period for which the exemption is already availed and the same could not have been denied and disturbed. He submits that there are number of Judgments to this effect that the exemption cannot be retrospectively denied. He also submits that the Tax Board as well as DLSC have not considered the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in correct perspective and therefore, the petitioner, without adequate finding by the Tax Board as well as DLSC, has been put to a great loss. Accordingly, he submits that the matter needs to be remanded to the Tax Board to consider the issue in the light of the facts pleaded by him.
2. In so far as the Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 27/2006 is concerned, he submits that it is a consequential order in the light of the order passed by the Tax Board against the order of DLSC wherein when the claim was disallowed, the assessing officer passed an order in conformity with the order of the Tax Board in S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No.2/2001 and therefore, both the matters need to be restored back to the Tax Board. In case the first Revision Petition STR No. 2/2001 is decided in favour of the petitioner by the Tax Board, then the second would be consequential and vice versa.
3. Shri P.K. Kasliwal, ld. Standing Counsel for the respondent-department also fairly concedes that the issue as raised by the petitioner before this court, appears to have not been fully addressed by the Tax Board and the real controversy has not been decided in toto, therefore, the matter may be restored to the Tax Board to re-decide the issue after granting an opportunity to the department as well.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned orders passed by the Tax Board as well as the DLSC. In my view, the DLSC, in its order dated 25.01.1997 has not correctly dealt with the issue as raised by the petitioner herein so also the Tax Board in its order dated 16.05.2000 has without going into the facts in detail, followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court when according to Counsel for the petitioner and according to the facts in the present case and facts before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the matter was with reference to Rajasthan Sales Tax and that the Hon'ble Apex Court restricted its judgment only to Rajasthan Sales Tax Act without any observation in so far as the Central Sales Tax Act is concerned. The judgments of the Apex Court is reported as State of Rajasthan V Gopal Oil Mills And Another reported in (1999) 115 STC 25 and State of Rajasthan Vs. Mahaveer Oil Industries And Others reported in (1999) 115 STC 29. Accordingly, both these Revision Petitions are restored back to the Rajasthan Tax Board to re-decide the issue in the light of the following observations/directions, as well as after considering the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to hereinabove.
(i)Whether the DLSC has jurisdiction to withdraw the exemption retrospectively i.e. in respect of the period for which the exemption is availed and whether the same can be denied?
(ii)Whether in accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra) the incentive/ exemption under 1987 scheme cannot be granted under CST Act?
5. Accordingly, both the Revision Petition are restored back to the Tax Board with the directions given herein above as also other arguments advanced by the both the parties and to re-decide the issue afresh within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order after affording an opportunity of hearing to both sides.
6. Thus both the revision petitions are partly allowed and stand disposed of with the directions/observations as given herein above.
(J.K.RANKA), J.
Anil Certificate: All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed./anil Jr.P.A