Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 61 (8.04 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Industrial Coal Enterprises on 24 February, 1999

Paswara Petrochem Limited vs Commissioner Of Trade Tax on 24 May, 2002

27. It may be stated here that in view of the preamble of the Notification No. 780 dated March 31, 1995 quoted above, the purpose of granting exemption to a unit undertaking expansion was to promote development of industries in the State. Hence, in view of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Industrial Coal Enterprises reported in [1999] 114 STC 365; (1999) 14 NTN 210, the construction of explanation (5) and the notification issued thereunder should be reasonable and in a purposive manner so as to achieve the object of the notification dated March 31, 1995 as held in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Industrial Coal Enterprises [1999] 114 STC 365 (SO ; (1999) 14 NTN 210.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - R B Misra - Full Document

State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs Ambay Cements & Anr on 17 November, 2004

Mr. Bharukha further submitted that in taxing statutes, provision of concessional rate of tax should be liberally construed and in respect of the above submission, he cited the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Industrial Coal Enterprises (Supra) and in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd., Bombay vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-III, Bombay (Supra). We are unable to countenance the above submission. In our view, the provisions of exemption clause should be strictly construed and if the condition under which the exemption was granted stood change on account of any subsequent event the exemption would not operate.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 245 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Kajaria Ceramics Limited vs Trade Tax Tribunal And Ors. on 13 January, 2000

17. Shri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist has rightly pointed out that the provisions for exemption are meant for the purposes of increasing the production of the goods and promoting the development of the industries in the State. Such provisions though to be construed strictly but should be construed in reasonable and purposive manner so as to advance the objective of the provision. The honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Industrial Coal Enterprises [1999] 114 STC 365 ; 1999 UPTC 250 made the following observations in paras 6, 11 and 12 of the judgment :
Allahabad High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 3 - P K Jain - Full Document

Pacific Health Care Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 12 May, 2000

It runs like this : "Where the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner is satisfied that the dealer has contravened any of the provisions referred to in Sub-rule (2) and Sub-rule (3) of Rule 98, he shall, after giving such dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard, by an order in writing, declare such certificate invalid from such date as he may specify in the order", Therefore, what has been clearly intended is that throughout the length of the period of tax holiday the dealer must observe and fulfil the requirements of Rule 98(2) and Rule 98(3), but not the requirements of Explanation I. And, to refresh our memory, we may repeat that the impugned Clause (v) regarding use of brand name, trade mark and logo, effective from September 1, 1999, was inserted in the Explanation I. Logically, the rule-making authority could not do otherwise, because the Explanation I is the definition of newly set up SSI unit. That definition must be conformed to by the applying dealer on the first date of sale and on the date of application. Once he satisfies the EC granting authority about that position, he is eligible to apply and show that he has fulfilled the requirements of Rules 98(2) and 98(3). He cannot be expected to conform to the definition in the Explanation I throughout the length of the period of validity of the EC. In this connection the applicants rightly relied on the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Industrial Coal Enterprises, reported in [1999] 114 STC 365 (SC) ; (1999) 2 JT 6 (SC). That was a case under a pari materia legislation, namely, the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The principle laid down is applicable here. In that case, the respondent had fulfilled the relevant conditions, being requirements of the definition of a new unit, at the time when it applied for exemption, as its capital investment did not exceed Rs. 3 lakhs. The unit was closed from July 23, 1986 to July 31, 1986, and production at new place started on August 1, 1986 with capital investment exceeding Rs. 3 lakhs. There was no condition that exemption, once granted, would cease to operate on capital investment being in excess of Rs. 3 lakhs. It was held that subsequent excess in capital investment could not be the ground for denying the exemption. It is interesting to note that in the West Bengal Rules also the limit of capital investment is Clause (i) in the Explanation I to Rule 98. That means, it is a requirement of the definition. So, when the requirements of the definition are fulfilled on the date of application and the date of first sale, and when the EC is granted for a specified period (as in the cases before us) the EC cannot be invalidated and the tax holiday cannot be denied on the ground that the dealer has subsequently failed to comply with the requirements of the definition in the Explanation I. That being the position, how can a new requirement like the Clause (v) regarding brand name, trade mark, logo, adversely affect such a dealer ? How can such a dealer be asked to comply with the new requirement after grant of EC, i.e., tax holiday ? It is not legally possible. There is nothing in Rules 98 to 101 to the effect that such a dealer shall have to comply with a new requirement. Moreover, look at Rule 101. It mandates that the dealer shall have to comply with the requirements of Rules 98(2) and 98(3) even subsequent to the grant of EC and grant of tax holiday, but it significantly leaves out the requirements of the Explanation I. On this reasoning alone the applications should succeed. But we are discussing the other contentions as well.
State Taxation Tribunal - West Bengal Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Ami Pigments Pvt. Ltd., Thr' Its ... vs State Of Gujarat, Thr' Secretary And ... on 23 April, 2007

In support of these contentions, the learned Counsels relied upon the decisions in (1) Vasuki Carborundum Works v. The State of Gujarat 43 STC 294; (2) Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Thomas Stephen & Co. Ltd. Quilon ; (3) K.Rasiklal & Co. v. State of Gujarat STR 3 of 1984, 1992 (86) STC 238; (4) J.K.Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur and Anr. 1965(16) STC 563; (5) Pournami Oil Mills and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr. 1986 (Supp) SCC 728; (6) Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. 77 STC 282; (7) Filterco and Anr. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh and Anr. ; (8) Vishwanath Jhunjhunwala v. State of U.P. and Anr. ; Page 0936 (9) Ghowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. ; (10) Standard Fireworks Industries, Sivakasi and Anr. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madurai ; (11) Judgment rendered by the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal at Ahmedabad on September 28, 2004 in Second Appeal No. 682 of 2003 which was filed by Pandesara Industries Ltd. against State of Gujarat; (12) Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. Cuttack v. Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar 1991 Supp (1) SCC 125; (13) State of Tamil Nadu v. Mahi Traders and Ors. ; (14) Collector of Central Excise, Guntur v. Andhra Sugar Ltd. Venkata-Raypurama 1989 Supp (1) SCC 144; (15) Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I and Anr. v. Parle Exports (P) Ltd. ; (16) Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Industrial Coal Enterprises ; (17) Government of India and Ors. v. Indian Tobacco Association ; (18) Mercury Pharmaceuticals Industries v. The State of Gujarat 43 STC 301; (19) Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Vadilal Dairy Frozen Food Industries (2006) 146 STC 9 (Guj); (20) Saurashtra Calcine Bauxite and Allied Industries v. State of Gujarat 1993 (91) STC 435; (21) Pine Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. v. Assessing Authority and Ors. ; (22) State of Orissa and Ors. v. Mangalam Timber Products Ltd. ; (23) State of Punjab v. Nestle India Ltd. and Anr. ; (24) West Bengal Page 0937 Hosiery Association and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr. (1988) 4 SCC 134; (25) British Physical Lab India Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Anr. ; (26) Shree Cement Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Rajashtan and Ors. ; (27) Indian Aluminum Co.Ltd.
Gujarat High Court Cites 84 - Cited by 76 - J M Panchal - Full Document

Lucky Steel Industries vs State Of Gujarat on 7 March, 2002

[g] Reliance on decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Industrial Coal Enterprises, reported in AIR 1999 SC 1324 was placed for the proposition that the provisions of exemption clause should not be, so strictly construed, as would defeat the very purpose and object of grant of exemption. It was observed by the Supreme Court that the object of granting exemption from payment of sales tax has always been for encouraging capital investment and establishment of industrial units for the purpose of increasing production of goods and promoting the development of industry in the State. The industrial unit fulfilled the relevant conditions at the time when it applied for exemption as its capital investment did not exceed Rs.3 lakhs. It was observed that neither the section nor the notification contained any condition that if the capital investment of the unit exceeds Rs.3 lakhs after the grant of exemption, such exemption would cease to operate. The respondent had shifted the unit to its own premises which made it much more convenient and easy for it to carry on the production, and the bonafides of the respondent had never been questioned.
Gujarat High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - K A Puj - Full Document

Mahavir Paints And Adhesives Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Commissioner Trade Tax on 24 November, 2005

4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the manufacturing process was earned on without the mixer machine. He submitted that the mixer machine required in the manufacturing of the product, which is clear from the fact that for two years, the manufacturing process was carried on without mixer machine. He submitted that the mixer machine was purchased for use in the laboratory 'for mixing the items for research work only' and not in the manufacturing of product. He submitted that in the report of S.K. Ahuja which has been given on the basis of visit of the factory, it has been stated that the kitchen mixer was used in the laboratory for mixing purposes and in no way, it was a part of the production. He submitted that no case has been made out either by the Divisional Level Committee or by the Tribunal that the mixer was an essential item required in the manufacturing of the final product. He also submitted the value of the mixer has not been added in the capital investment. In this view of the matter, he claimed mat the exemption should be allowed for the entire period. He further submitted that for the purposes of granting exemption, liberal view should be taken In support' of his contention, he relied upon the decisions in the case of Mansarovar Bottling Company Ltd., Bijnor v. Commissioner of Trade Tax reported in 1999 UPTC 864, Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Industrial Coal Enterprises reported in 1999 UPTC 250, H.M. Industries v. Sales Tax Officer reported in 2003 UPTC 496, Punjab Furnitures, Moradabad v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in 2004 UPTC 1106 and Kama Granites Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of Trade Tax reported in 2005 UPTC 515. Learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of the Tribunal.
Allahabad High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - R Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next