Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1994 (8) TMI 237

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 597, W.P. Nos. 598, W.P. Nos. 599, W.P. Nos. 600, W.P. Nos. 601, W.P. Nos. 602, W.P. Nos. 603 of 1980 decided on August 30, 1994   Ashok Mathur, Advocate, for the respondents.   S. Fazi, Ms. Shefali and P.H. Parekh, Advocates, for the appellants.   --------------------------------------------------   The judgment of the Court was delivered by   SUHAS C. SEN, J.-These appeals are against a judgment of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir dated June 24, 1983. The point for consideration before the High Court was whether the State had arbitrarily exercised its power under section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by not extending the period of exemption f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....PCC poles, tiles, hollow blocks, tarrazo tiles and bricks" were included in the list of exempted small-scale industries under the heading "CEMENT, CERAMIC AND STONE INDUSTRIES". By virtue of this notification any goods included in the exempted list could not be subjected to sales tax during the period July 5, 1968 to March 31, 1977. Thereafter, another notification was issued being No. S.R.O. 267, which came into force on April 1, 1977. Under this notification, various goods included in annexure I of the notification were exempted from sales tax. Among the exempted goods PCC poles, tiles and hollow blocks were included under the heading "CEMENT, CERAMIC AND STONE INDUSTRIES". As a result of the aforesaid Notification No. S.R.O. 267 indus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urther incentive from the Government. Therefore, it cannot be said that the State had acted arbitrarily in treating brick industry and tile industry differently for imposition of sales tax. It was next contended that the withdrawal of the exemption from taxation was done retrospectively and it caused undue hardship to the brick industry. This contention again is untenable. The brick industry was given exemption up to March 31, 1977. It was not continued thereafter. There is no question of any hardship being caused by a retrospective legislation. Lastly, it was contended that the Government had promised to grant exemption to the brick manufacturing industry for a certain period of time. It was on the basis of this promise that brick manufa....