Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Court grants condonation for delay in special appeal filing due to sufficient cause. Partnership firm entitled to Sales Tax Incentive Schemes pre-exclusion.</h1> <h3>State of Rajasthan Versus Goverdhan Oil Mills</h3> The court granted condonation of the delay in filing the special appeal due to sufficient cause shown. The respondent, a partnership firm, was held ... - Issues:1. Condonation of delay in filing the special appeal.2. Entitlement to Sales Tax Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1987 and 1989.3. Validity of the notification dated May 7, 1990.4. Consideration of effective steps taken before May 7, 1990 for claiming exemption.Condonation of Delay:The special appeal was filed four days late, but the delay was condoned after considering the reasons provided in the application supported by an affidavit. The court found a sufficient cause for the delay and granted condonation.Entitlement to Sales Tax Incentive Scheme:The respondent, a partnership firm, had applied for exemption under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1987. Subsequently, a new scheme was introduced in 1989, excluding oil units from the benefits. The respondent had invested significantly in machinery and construction before the issuance of a notification on May 7, 1990, which excluded oil units. The court held that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of the Sales Tax Incentive Schemes 1987/1989 based on the investments made and steps taken before the exclusion notification.Validity of Notification dated May 7, 1990:The appellant argued that the notification dated May 7, 1990, excluding oil units, should not have been quashed as it was within the state government's power. However, the court found that all effective steps for claiming exemption were taken before the notification date, making it unjust to deny the benefit based on the notification. The court disagreed with the necessity of quashing the notification but upheld the entitlement of the petitioner to the incentive schemes.Consideration of Effective Steps Before May 7, 1990:The court noted that the land was obtained, and significant investments were made in construction and machinery before May 7, 1990. The plant was erected and production commenced before the exclusion date. The delay in production commencement was considered reasonable, and since all essential steps were taken before the notification date, the petitioner was deemed entitled to the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1987/1989. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the entitlement of the petitioner without costs.