TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (7) TMI 660
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of consumer products like vanaspati and toilet soaps, etc., in its factories at Amalner in Jalgaon district in Maharashtra State and Tumkur in Karnataka State. It has been registered under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short, "the State Act") as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, "the Central Act"). The said products manufactured in the State of Maharashtra are sold not only in the State of Maharashtra but in other States as well and the raw materials required are also procured from Maharashtra as well as other States. 3.. The dealers in the State of Maharashtra used to effect purchases by giving declaration in form No. 15 to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 72 STC 69), the petition came to be dismissed by this Court. The Supreme Court by judgment dated October 19, 1989 was pleased to set aside the judgment of this Court and upheld the challenge to the validity of section 13AA of the State Act. The State of Maharashtra, by Ordinance No. 9 of 1989, introduced a new section 13AA with effect from July 1, 1982 and it was replaced by Maharashtra Act No. 2 of 1990 with effect from July 1, 1982. The said new provision also came to be challenged by the petitioners and other dealers before this Court and more so, the retrospective introduction of the said provision with effect from July 1, 1982. This Court, by order dated August 28, 1990, was pleased to declare that the newly added provision was uncons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessment periods from Reported in [1990] 76 STC 71 (SC) as Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana. †Reported as Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra. July 1, 1984 to June 30, 1985, July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986, July 1, 1986 to June 30, 1989, April 1, 1987 to March 31, 1990, April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991, April 1, 1991 to March 31, 1992, April 1, 1992 to March 31, 1993, April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1994, April 1, 1994 to March 31, 1995 and April 1, 1995 to March 31, 1996, the petitioners appeals were pending and therefore, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 5034 of 1999 seeking directions to dispose of the said appeals on the basis of the Tribunal's order dated December 21, 1996 in Second Appeal No. 72....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment (even falling after July 1, 1981) by following the instructions issued under circulars dated June 21, 1978, the assessment need not be reopened for withdrawal of the said concession." 8.. It appears that the first appellate authority, i.e., the Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) relied on the clarification at (ii) above and held that the administrative concessions granted on June 21, 1978 vide Circular No. 20 of 1978 were withdrawn retrospectively and therefore, the appeals failed. 9.. It is contended by the petitioners that the State Government has unchallenged powers to modify its policy in granting concessions introduced by way of administrative circulars but the said withdrawal cannot be retrospective and it has to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel and the withdrawal of concessions granted in payment of excise duty has to be prospective. Retrospective withdrawal of such concessions has been declared to be invalid and unconstitutional. 11.. On the face of the law laid down by the apex Court, the withdrawal of concessions granted by the State of Maharashtra and Reported as Unit Trust of India v P.K. Unny. continued even after the introduction of section 13AA of the State Act, could not have been effected retrospectively and it ought to be prospective and therefore, the challenge to the impugned circular dated February 1, 2000 issued by respondent No. 2 is required to be upheld. 12.. In addition to the above, it is pertinen....