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 clause (iv) of Explanation II to the sales tax exemption notification dated June 7, 1989 was inconsistent with the industrial policy and liable to be struck down, and whether the petitioner could avoid its effect after having collected tax.
Analysis: The industrial policy contemplated sales tax exemption, which meant that tax was not to be collected. The notification, issued in implementation of the policy, clarified that where an eligible unit collected tax, the exemption would not apply to that turnover. That clarification was treated as consistent with and supportive of the policy rather than repugnant to it. Since exemptions operate as special benefits and must be understood strictly according to the notification, the petitioner's collection of tax defeated the claim to exemption. The challenge based on the understanding said to have been reached by the petitioner and the departmental authority was not accepted.
Conclusion: Clause (iv) of Explanation II was upheld, and the challenge to the exemption condition failed.
Final Conclusion: The petition failed on the validity of the exemption condition, and the assessment-related grievances were left to be pursued in appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: A tax exemption notification implementing an industrial policy may validly deny exemption where the eligible unit has collected tax, because such a clarification is in aid of the policy and exemptions must be construed strictly in accordance with the notification.