Entry tax exemption depends on both notification coverage and compliance with certificate conditions; later project-specific regime applied.

An exemption from entry tax must satisfy both the substantive scope of the notification and its prescribed conditions. A windmill-specific 2000 notification could not be preferred where the project was established under the later renewable-energy policy regime reflected in the 2010 notification, and the supply contract treated any entry tax as part of the price. The 2010 notification also required production of a Department of Energy exemption certificate showing project registration, commencement and eligibility; failure to produce that certificate defeated the claim. On that basis, the entry tax assessment, demand and interest were sustained and the writ petition was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to exemption from entry tax under the notification dated 31.03.2000 or was governed by the notification dated 18.12.2010; (ii) Whether the petitioner's failure to produce the prescribed exemption certificate disentitled it from claiming exemption.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to exemption from entry tax under the notification dated 31.03.2000 or was governed by the notification dated 18.12.2010.

Analysis: The exemption under the 2000 notification was framed for dealers bringing in wind mills and their parts and accessories, whereas the 2010 notification was issued for entrepreneurs setting up renewable energy projects and was linked to the State's renewable energy policy and the conditions prescribed therein. The project records and the supply contract showed that the petitioner's unit was established as a renewable energy project under the later policy regime, and the contract itself proceeded on the footing that entry tax, if any, formed part of the supply price. On that factual and statutory setting, the earlier windmill-specific notification could not be preferred over the later project-specific exemption framework.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to claim exemption under the notification dated 31.03.2000, and the notification dated 18.12.2010 applied to the project.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner's failure to produce the prescribed exemption certificate disentitled it from claiming exemption.

Analysis: The 2010 notification made exemption conditional upon production of the certificate issued by the Department of Energy showing registration of the project, dates of commencement, and eligibility for exemption. The petitioner failed to produce the required certificate despite being called upon to do so. Since exemption notifications are to be applied along with their stipulated conditions, non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements defeated the claim for exemption.

Conclusion: The petitioner was disentitled to the exemption for failure to comply with the prescribed conditions.

Final Conclusion: The assessment and demand of entry tax and interest were sustained, and the writ petition was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim to exemption under a fiscal notification must satisfy the notification's substantive coverage and its prescribed conditions, and an assessee cannot invoke an earlier exemption to avoid a later project-specific regime when the project is governed by that later notification and the required certificate is not produced.

---