2012 (8) TMI 876

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der Notification No. A-3-24-94-ST-V (108) dated October 6, 1994 inspite of there being directions issued by the BIFR in the scheme sanctioned on October 4, 2007 for the revival/rehabilitation of the petitioner-company. The petitioner has also challenged the consequential orders of assessment dated January 10, 2012 (annexures P/2 and P/3) passed by the assessing authority refusing to grant the benefit of exemption for want of eligibility certificate for such exemption from tax under the M.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2002 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. According to the petitioner no demands could be raised on the basis of the impugned assessment orders (annexures P/2 and P/3) as the same is not enforceable against the petitioner during implemen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ny became a sick industrial company and was declared as a "sick industrial unit" by BIFR and a scheme for revival/rehabilitation was under preparation/ consideration. Therefore, the petitioner once again submitted an application on March 23, 2006 before the State Government through the Ministry of Commerce Industries and Commercial Tax Department seeking review/ reconsideration of the earlier decision. As the petitioner became a sick industrial company, it had approached the BIFR for its revival/rehabilitation which lead to the declaration of the petitioner as a sick industrial undertaking as per the provisions contained in the SICA. On October 4, 2007, the BIFR finally sanctioned the scheme for revival/rehabilitation of the petitioner-c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tee, we find that the High Level Committee has declined the relief claimed by the petitioner by observing that it is not within the jurisdiction of High Level Committee to take decision in the matter. It has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the decision is to be taken by the State Government and not by the High Level Committee. He, however, submitted that in yet another Writ Petition No. 8705 of 2010, a reply has been filed by the respondents taking a stand that the grant of reliefs and concessions as particular matter of policy falling within the domain of the State Government and the State Government is not duty-bound to formulate any policy regarding exemption to tax on the basis of the guidelines of the schem....