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 the benefit of the Package Scheme of Incentives, framed to grant sales tax relief by way of deferral, extended to additional tax and turnover tax introduced after the scheme came into force.
Analysis: The scheme was framed to attract industrial units to developing areas and defined the eligible sales tax liability broadly in terms of sales tax, general sales tax and purchase tax. Although additional tax and turnover tax were introduced later and were not expressly named in the original scheme, the Court held that these imposts were in substance only facets or enhancements of sales tax, being levied with reference to sales turnover. The Court also relied on the discriminatory consequence of treating deferral units differently from exemption units under the same incentive policy, and on the representations and assurances under which the petitioners altered their position and established the industrial unit at Solapur.
Conclusion: The petitioners were held entitled to deferment of additional tax and turnover tax under the Package Scheme of Incentives, and the impugned notices, demand notices and trade circular were quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: Taxes imposed on sales turnover, though differently named, may fall within a sales tax incentive scheme where the scheme's object, context and substance show that the intended relief extends to such imposts.