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 an industrial unit that had been penalised for evasion of tax and against which appellate proceedings were still pending was entitled to be directed to issue an eligibility certificate under the Incentive Scheme.
Analysis: The application sought exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under section 8 of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 to compel compliance with the Screening Committee's earlier direction. The Scheme, framed under section 4 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, expressly provided in clause 7(e) that no benefit would be available to an industrial unit if it had been penalised for avoidance or evasion of tax or if such a case was pending at any stage of hearing. Clause 10 further declared the incentive to be a concession and not a source of enforceable right. The applicant's own pleadings admitted imposition of penalty under section 22A(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 for tax evasion, dismissal of the first appeal, and pendency of the second appeal.
Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to the claimed benefit under the Scheme, and extraordinary jurisdiction could not be invoked in its favour.
Ratio Decidendi: A concession-based incentive scheme does not confer an enforceable right, and where the scheme itself excludes units penalised for tax evasion, the benefit cannot be compelled through extraordinary jurisdiction.