2011 (8) TMI 1052

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ccording to the petitioners, they fulfil the conditions of the exemption Notification No. A-3-24-94-ST-V(108) dated October 6, 1994 issued by the State exercising the powers under section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The said notification was subsequently amended, vide Notification No. A-3-74-99-ST-V(48) dated June 9, 2000 providing the cut-off date of December 31, 1999 thereby adversely affecting the exemption claim of the petitioners. The petitioners had made applications for grant of eligibility certificate under the exemption notification, which were rejected by the District Level Committee on the ground that the petitioners did not take effective steps within ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....icated the said decision on October 5, 2001 (in W.P. No. 4687 of 2010) and on December 22, 2001 (in W.P. No. 4688 of 2010). The stand of the State is that since the petitioners' cases have been considered and rejected, therefore, they are not entitled for any relief. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and minutely perused the record. In the earlier round of litigation, the W.P. No. 3600 of 2002 and W.P. No. 3532 of 2002 filed by the petitioners were disposed of by the Division Bench of this court by the common order dated September 11, 2003 by issuing the following direction: "4. Without getting into the constitutional validity of the notification a suggestion was given by the court to the learned counsel for the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ench. The order of the District Level Committee referred above and relied upon by the State was issued prior to the order of the Division Bench of this court, therefore, they had lost their relevance after the direction was issued by the Division Bench of this court. Even otherwise by the earlier orders the claim of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that the petitioners did not fulfil the condition of taking effective steps prior to December 31, 1999 in terms of the amendment in the notification incorporated on June 9, 2000, whereas in terms of the Division Bench order the respondents have to examine if the petitioners are covered essentially and effectively by the earlier notification. Counsel for the respondents has placed rel....