Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.36 seconds)

M/S.Jindal Poly Films Ltd. & Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 10 June, 2013

8. Following its decision in Pee Vee Textiles, The Sales Tax ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:30:10 ::: VBC 8/41 wp313.10 Tribunal declined to make a reference to this Court on an application filed before it by the Commissioner of Sales Tax. A Sales Tax Application was thereafter filed under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (The Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Pee Vee Textile Ltd.).2 A Division Bench of this Court in a judgment dated 13 October 2008 dealt with the issue as to whether the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax was justified in imposing conditions in the entitlement certificate so as to place a ceiling on the utilization of the quantum of incentives proportionately to the total quantity of finished products produced. The Division Bench held that the condition restricting the utilization of incentives in each year proportionate to the finished products attributable to the fixed assets newly acquired by the existing unit had not been incorporated either in paragraph 3.8 of the Package Scheme of Incentives of 1993 or in the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Division Bench noted that whereas paragraph 3.8 originally provided for the grant of incentives to a unit acquiring new fixed assets on a proportionate basis, this requirement was deleted with effect from 6 July 1994.

Finolex Cables Limited & Another vs The State Of Maharasthra & Otehrs on 20 August, 2016

64. The petitioners have also relied upon a Division Bench Page 45 of 59 J.V.Salunke,PA ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2016 00:20:52 ::: Judgment-WP.1009.1998.doc judgment of this court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai vs. PCE VEE Textile Ltd.6. The facts and circumstances of that case were also identical. It is in this backdrop that the Division Bench, from paras 15 onwards, held as under:-
1