Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.17 seconds)Wipro Infotech Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 16 April, 1998
The material on record would show that there is no such finding in terms of para 22 of the Wipro's case by the Sales Tax Officer. On the other hand, a notice has been issued by the Commissioner for Industrial Development without there being an opinion by the Sales Tax Officer when this show cause notice was issued a very detailed objection has been filed by the petitioner contending interalia that the said amendment runs counter to the Division Bench judgment. Personal hearing was given and thereafter the impugned endorsement has been issued. It is very necessary to quote the original certificate issued by the authorities.
Birla Jute And Inds. Ltd. vs State Of M.P. And Anr. on 4 May, 2000
In the said judgment, this Court has noticed that if the investment has already been made, prior to coming into force of the notification dated 11-10-1995, in terms of the notification dated 28-8-1993, the benefit of exemption cannot be denied giving effect to the notification dated 11.10.1995 retrospectively. In the case on hand, admittedly, investment has been made by the petitioner prior to 11-10-1995. After noticing the same, the respondents deny the benefits following the notification dated 11-10-1995. This again is a legal error committed by the respondent. On this ground also this Court has no option but to set aside the amended certificate. The amendment certificate in my view is factually and legally unsustainable in the light of Division Bench judgment on the facts of this case. There are no factual errors shown to me in terms of the Division Bench judgment. Looking from any angle, I am of the view that, this Court has to come to the aid of the petitioner in the light of the Division Bench judgment. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned amended certificates issued by the Department.
1