Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, after dissolution of the partnership firm and takeover of the business by a different legal entity, the assessee could claim exemption under Notification No. 138/86 despite earlier availing benefit under Notification No. 175/86.
Analysis: Dissolution of the partnership resulted in the firm ceasing to exist, and the subsequent manufacture was carried on by the new entity. The situation was therefore not a mere change in registration but a change in legal identity. The prohibition in Notification No. 138/86 against a manufacturer availing exemption under Notification No. 175/86 was directed against simultaneous or concurrent availment by the same manufacturer, which was not the case here. The reference to the conditions in Notification No. 175/86 was held to be irrelevant to the dispute.
Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 138/86, and the denial of benefit was not sustainable.
Final Conclusion: The order of the appellate authority was set aside and the assessee's claim to exemption was restored.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a partnership firm has ceased to exist and a distinct legal entity carries on the business, the bar on availing two exemption notifications simultaneously does not apply unless the same manufacturer claims both benefits at the same time.