TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (3) TMI 636
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....voking suo motu revisional jurisdiction under section 15(2) of the said Act, the claim of the appellant for exemption from entry tax has been rejected. 2.. Since during the course of arguments, a question of law, having far reaching consequences based on interpretation of the Notification No. FD II CET 93(III), dated March 31, 1993 (annexure D) issued under section 11-A of the Entry Tax Act regarding grant of exemption from entry tax in respect of sale of finished products of pre-existing industrial units which had made investment on expansion, cropped up, therefore, in order to ensure uniformity in application of the provision of the said notification, we called upon the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes or any responsible officer author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... used in the manufacture of its finished products. The said claim of exemption was based on the above impugned notification dated March 31, 1993 (annexure D). 6. The notification in question reads thus: "Notification No. III, Bangalore, dated March 31, 1993, Karnataka Gazette, dated 31st March, 1993. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 11-A of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (Karnataka Act 27 of 1979), the Government of Karnataka being of the opinion that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts with effect from the first day of April, 1993 the tax payable under the said Act on the entry of raw materials, component parts and inputs and machinery and its parts into a loca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... claiming exemption under this notification." 7.. It may be noticed here that the Notification No. FD 239 CSL 90(I) dated June 19, 1991 was issued by the State Government under section 8-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. This notification provides for grant of exemption of sales tax to the industrial units on the goods produced and sold by them under two situations, namely: (i) if the industry is a "new industrial unit" within the meaning of clause (b) of the explanation I appended to the said notification, and, (ii) if the existing industrial units have made investments after October 1, 1990 for its expansion or diversification or modernisation subject to the conditions and ceiling prescribed under explanation II to the said....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation/modernisation and the period of exemption shall be that which corresponds to the Sl. No. of the table which applies to the unit in question except where an investment is made by an existing unit to set up another separate unit situated in different premises for producing an entirely new and different product, such investment will be treated as a new unit and not a diversification or expansion. (b) The Director of Industries and Commerce or his authorised nominee shall certify the amounts spent on investment for expansion/diversification/ modernisation. (c) for the purpose of calculating the amount of tax exemptions, the amounts of tax exempted under this notification and Notification No. CI 138/SPC/90, dated 27th September, 199....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent has also formed the same view. Para 7 of the said affidavit reads thus: "A reading of explanation I of the notification issued under the KTEG Act dated March 31, 1993 would go to show that the intention of the notification is only to exempt a new industrial unit and not the existing industrial unit. As if at all the intention was to exempt even the existing units, either the notification would have provided an explanation as is done under the KST Act or it would have been specifically stated in the notification dated March 31, 1993 that Explanation II of the notification dated June 19, 1991 issued under the KST Act shall be made applicable even to the notification issued under the KTEG Act. Under these circumstances, I submit that....