TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 818
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd (for short, "Tax Board") by which the Tax Board, while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner-Depart ment, has upheld the orders dated November 22, 1999 and March 10, 2004, respectively, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) (for short, "DC (A)") by which the DC (A), while quashing and setting aside the orders dated May 27, 1999 and August 1, 2001, respectively, passed by the assessing officer, has deleted the tax and penalty imposed by the assessing officer upon the respondent-assessee. The counsel for the petitioner-Department submits that the respondentassessee was granted benefit of tax exemption from October 13, 1993 and May 7, 1990, respectively, under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1989. While relying upon judgment of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer and benefit beyond April 4, 1994 could not have been allowed nor availed of by the respondent-assessee and, therefore, a notice under section 37, as aforesaid, was issued. He submits that if a judgment has been pronounced by the honourable apex court, then section 37 prescribes that it would be con sidered as a mistake apparent on the face of record. He drew attention of this court on the plain and simple language of section 37. He further submits that there are various authorities of the honourable apex court that benefit granted on the basis of judgment could not be extended beyond the time allowed by the honourable apex court. In this regard, he referred to the judgment of the honourable apex court in the case of Dwarikesh Sugar Indu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1990 would not come in the way of the petitioner claiming exemption of the sales tax under the Sales Tax Incentive Schemes of 1987 and 1989 notified, in cases where the industries had been installed and produc tion was started prior to March 31, 1992." 6 The State of Rajasthan preferred appeals before the honourable apex court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Gopal Oil Mills reported in [1999] 115 STC 25 (SC); [1999] 4 SCC 368 and the honourable apex court vide judgment dated February 23, 1995 held as under (page 28 in 115 STC): "We find that even after the impugned judgment of the High Court was rendered on January 12, 1993, eligibility certificates were issued to certain industrial units and a circular dated January 27, 1994 was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Rajasthan Sales Tax Act up to April 4, 1994. The judgment of the High Court insofar as it quashes the notification of May 7, 1990, issued in respect of the incentive scheme under the Central Sales Tax Act is upheld in the light of the decision of this court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Gopal Oil Mills [1999] 115 STC 25 (SC); [1999] 4 SCC 368. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs looking to the circumstances of the present case." I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner 9 and perused the material available on record as well as the order impugned and the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner and I am of the view that the present sales t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rable apex court, i.e., April 20, 1999. Therefore, by the aforesaid two judgments of the honourable apex court, it was directed that the bene fits flowing from issuance of certificate or/and incentive scheme was not correct and ultimately the notification of May 7, 1990 was upheld as valid. It is also appropriate to quote section 37 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 11 1994 which reads as under: "37. Rectification of a mistake.-(1) With a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, any officer appointed or any authority constituted under the Act may rectify suo motu or otherwise any order passed by him. Explanation: A mistake apparent from the record shall include an order which was valid when it was made and it subseque....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that when benefit has been extended by the honourable apex court, considering the hardship faced by the similarly situated traders, up to the period when the operation of the judgment of this court was stayed, i.e., April 4, 1994 and when benefit has been denied to all such assessees, who were before the honourable apex court, then by no stretch of imagination, such a benefit beyond April 4, 1994 can be extended to the present respondents. The benefit for all assessees or for all similarly situated assessees would be extended only up to April 4, 1994 as upheld by honourable the apex court and, therefore, in my view, both, i.e., the Tax Board as well as the DC (A) have erred in holding it otherwise. 13 The honourable apex court in the cas....