TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (7) TMI 341
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... out in the writ petition had closed down in September, 1992 as the petitionercompany had suffered loss totalling Rs. 1,89,69,511. Assessing Authorityrespondent No. 4 in view of the closure of the business of the petitionercompany in the year 1992 cancelled the exemption certificate and imposed tax amounting to Rs. 7,94,848 and interest amounting to Rs. 2,36,987, i.e., total of Rs. 10,31,835. Assessing Authority cancelled the exemption certificate and levied the tax in view of rule 28-A(9)(i) and 28-A(10)(v) of the Rules, which reads as under: "Rule 28-A(9): The exemption/entitlement certificate granted to an eligible industrial unit shall be liable to be cancelled by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner concerned in the following ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bruary 28, 1994, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. 4.. No appeal was filed against the order dated January 14, 1994 as the appeal had been dismissed on merit on February 28, 1994. Petitioner-company filed an appeal against the order dated February 28, 1994 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal keeping in view the financial difficulties being faced by the petitioner-company ordered that the amount be recovered in monthly instalments of Rs. 1,00,000 first starting within a period of one month from the date of issuance of order and the remaining monthly instalments thereafter. Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (First Appellate Court) was directed to hear the appeal on merits after notice to the parties. Petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here a unit may play fraud and close its business after availing the exemption from payment of tax for sometime. It was a concession with certain conditions which in our view are reasonable. 6.. The next contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions of the Rules under challenge are retrospective in its operation and it is a bad law; that the operation of these Rules is retrospective and it relates to past transactions and, therefore, liable to be struck down. For this he has placed reliance upon two judgments reported as, Rai Ramkrishna v. State of Bihar [1963] 50 ITR 171 (SC); AIR 1963 SC 1667 and Jawaharmal v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1966 SC 764. Both these judgments have no relevance to the point in issue. In these ....