1997 (8) TMI 504

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....from August 6, 1988, the assessment orders (annexure 2 in each case) and the demand notices (annexure 3 in each case). Their particulars are as follows: S. No. Writ Petition No. RST or CST Period Date of assessment Amount levied Remarks (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 1. 3136/92 RST & CST 1.1.1992 to 31.3.1992 11.5.1992 4,46,262 1,15,933   2. 1124/92 RST 1.4.1991 to 30.9.1991 11.2.1992 18, 62,682   3. 1259/92 RST 1.10.1991 to 31.12.1991 11.2.1992 3,61,654   4. 5088/92 RST 1.4.1988 to 31.3.1989 29.8.1992 9,12,453   5. 5865/93 RST 1.4.1990 to 31.6.1991 6.10.1993 30,63,568   ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that the said notification dated January 11, 1990 (annexure 1) is illegal, exemption from payment of tax granted earlier could not be withdrawn with retrospective effect, the provisions of section 4(2) of the RST Act and section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, "the CST Act") did not empower the State Government to withdraw the exemption with retrospective effect, the petitioner did not recover any sales tax from its customers during the aforesaid periods and in pursuance of the assessment orders the petitioner has been made liable to pay the aforesaid huge amounts. He further contended that under section 4(2) of the RST Act and 8(5) of the CST Act exemption could be granted with retrospective effect but the exemption gra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the said notification annexure 1, the petitioner has been made liable for the payment of huge amount without charging a single paisa from its customers. Exemption can well be granted with retrospective effect as it does not adversely affect either a customer or a dealer. In case of grant of exemption with retrospective effect, the tax collected by the dealer had stood deposited in Government treasury. 7.. It has been held in State of Madhya Pradesh v. G.S. Dal and Flour Mills [1991] 80 STC 138 (SC) at page 165, that subsequent notification cannot take away with retrospective effect exemption granted by an earlier notification. The aforesaid notification dated January 11, 1990 has also been the subject-matter of dispute in Sales Tax Re....