Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.17 seconds)State Of Bihar & Ors. Etc. Etc vs M/S. Suprabhat Steel Limited & Ors., ... on 17 November, 1998
“2. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of
sub-section (5) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central
Act No. 74 of 1956), the Governor of Himachal Pradesh is pleased to direct
that in respect of the sale in the courses of inter-State trade or commerce
of the goods (other than those manufactured by the breweries, distilleries,
nonfruit/vegetable based wineries and bottling plants (both of country
liquor and Indian made foreign liquor) manufactured by the dealers running
any existing industrial unit or new industrial unit (other than those new
industrial units which are located in the tax free industrial zone) in the
State of Himachal Pradesh, and are registered as dealer with Excise and
Taxation Department, Himachal Pradesh, the tax levied under sub-section (1)
of section 8 of the said Act shall be calculated and payable at the rate of
1% of the taxable turnover of such goods with immediate effect for the
period ending 31.03.2013.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The whole thrust of the contention advanced by the State is that since the
notification under the Act providing for tax concession was issued only on
18.06.2009 wherein it was specifically mentioned that the notification
would have immediate effect and would operate for the period ending on
31.03.2013, the appellant is not entitled to the CST concession @ 1% for
the intervening period between 01.04.2009 to 18.06.2009. The appellant,
however, submits that in view of the policy decision taken by the State
Government extending the tax concession beyond 31.03.2009 to 31.03.2013,
the Excise and Taxation Department of the State Government cannot take a
different view and deny the tax concession for the period between
01.04.2009 to 18.06.2009-the date of the notification issued under Section
8(5)(b) of the Act. Heavy reliance is also placed on the decision of this
Court in State of Bihar and others v. Suprabhat Steel Limited and
Others[1].
State Of Jharkhand & Others vs Tata Cummins Ltd. & Another on 24 March, 2006
The High Court, with great respect, has gone wrong in not appreciating the
background of the case and the decision of the Council of Ministers to
extend its own Industrial Policy announced in 2004 and the tax concession
beyond 31.03.2009. Once the Council of Ministers takes a policy decision,
the implementing Department cannot issue a notification contrary to the
policy decision taken by the Government. The High Court also erred in
analyzing and understanding the Notification dated 18.06.2009 as if it
introduced the CST concession @ 1 per cent with effect from the date of
issuance of notification. As we have already clarified, it is not the
introduction of a new policy but an extension of the benefits under the
extended policy. It is in this context, the decision of this Court in
Suprabhat Steel Limited (supra) and State of Jharkhand and others v. Tata
Communications Limited and another[2] become relevant.
1