TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (3) TMI 725
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2, 1993 outlining the new industrial policy of the Government of Karnataka for the period from 1993 to 1998. The claim of the petitioner was on the premise that it carries on certain manufacturing activities and as such can avail of the concessions sought to be given by the Government as had been indicated in this Government Order dated July 12, 1993. 2.. The assessing authority had rejected such claim of the petitioner and had concluded assessments for these years without extending such benefit to the petitioner. 3.. Petitioner had filed rectification applications under section 25-A of the Act for the years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 claiming that the rejection of the concession to the petitioner was erroneous and that he sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upra) this aspect of the matter was not examined by this Court and the matter was relegated to the assessing authority to consider the application/s of the petitioner in the light of the interpretation given by the Supreme Court to the word "manufacture" in the case of Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2002] 125 STC 101; [2001] 251 ITR 323; (2001) 7 SCC 525. 6.. The assessing authority having issued certain proposition notices subsequent to the order passed by this Court on March 21, 2003 in W.P. No. 6602 of 2000 and connected cases and these notices not only included three years in respect of which petitioner had approached this Court earlier but also two subsequent years ending for the year March 31, 1999 and March 31....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her that the assessing authority being not in a position to give effective relief to the petitioner beyond what is contemplated in a notification issued under section 8-A of the Act and as it is the case of the petitioner that this notification should be understood in the background of the earlier Government notification dated July 12, 1993 outlining the industrial policy of the Government, petitioner cannot be compelled to go before the authority for such relief and therefore the petitioner has approached this Court again for suitable relief. 9.. Learned counsel also submits that the issue of interpretation of the exemption notification under section 8-A of the Act and as to whether it should be read down or so understood only to be in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1993, or in the alternative, can urge before this Court to read down this notification so as to exclude the words "goods manufactured and sold by" occurring in this notification, the submission on the part of the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is not as though the petitioner has become aware of the nature of exemption that he can claim only now. In fact, the petitioner had been denied such exemption as and when assessment orders were passed for the six years in question. Petitioner had not questioned the same for the first three years in question and for the latter three years, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the issue is at large before the various statutory authorities and at different levels, even before this Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lar order to be bad in law and directs the concerned authority to reconsider the matter, the scope of such reconsideration can never be understood to be beyond the scope of the jurisdiction prescribed by the statute under which the authority functions. In the instant case, petitioner had filed a rectification application under section 25-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 seeking the assessing officer to rectify the assessment orders in respect of some of the assessment years. These applications having been rejected by the assessing officer, petitioner had approached this Court seeking judicial review under writ jurisdiction. When this Court, on finding the order to be bad for any reason, quashes the same and directs the authority to....