TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (2) TMI 378
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been rejected. In brief, the facts leading to this writ petition are as under: Petitioner No. 1 was a sole proprietorship concern of Shri Mahesh Chand who died on July 5, 1991. Petitioner No. 2, Smt. Gulabwati is the widow of Shri Mahesh Chand. Vide Government order dated September 30, 1982, the State Government have offered the incentive for exemption from payment of sales tax to all the industries established in the State of Uttar Pradesh according to the norms laid down by the State Government. Allured by the aforesaid incentive the deceased Mahesh Chand had decided to establish the petitioner-concern for manufacturing polythene sheets and bags. After completing all the requisite legal formalities as require....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecting the review application under the impugned order dated June 3, 1992 (annexure 11 to the writ petition) the Divisional Level Committee (respondent No. 2) has assigned altogether different grounds on the face of the record specially when no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the petitioners before passing the said order. In support of his contention the learned counsel submits that for grant of exemption under section 4-A of the Act the accessories or components to be used in an industry within the meaning of the Act should not already be used or acquired for use in any other factory or workshop in India and the petitioners have indeed according to Shri Agarwal installed such machines which were not already used or acquired f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the submissions of the petitioners by rejecting the application for exemption from payment of sales tax and the review application dated December 4, 1991 and, thus this petition is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused both the impugned orders dated November 29, 1991 and June 3, 1992 contained in annexures 7 and 11 respectively to the writ petition, this Court is of the opinion that no cogent and convincing reasons have been assigned for rejecting the aforesaid applications and, therefore, it is a fit case to be remanded to the Divisional Level Committee (respondent No. 2) and the two impugned orders dated November 29, 1991 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cerned could doubt without disclosing cogent reasons that the machinery purchased were not new ones but are used ones. Similar is the case with regard to the last ground assigned for rejecting the application for non-production of the SSI Registration Certificate before it. The conclusion arrived at in the order dated June 3, 1992 contained in annexure 11 to the writ petition that after the death of Mahesh Chand on July 5, 1991 the firm was not reconstituted has also nothing to do with the exemption certificate as at the most if the petitioners fulfilled all the requirements at least the petitioners are entitled to get exemption from payment of sales tax up to the date of death of Shri Mahesh Chand. Thereafter, reconstitution of the firm ha....