2006 (7) TMI 647

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of sales tax granted as per Ext. P10 had been cancelled. The learned single Judge did not accept the challenge. Therefore, these appeals. 2. The appellants are manufacturers of bottled drinking water. There were several such units. There was dispute, including up to this Court and the Supreme Court, as to the taxability of the package of drinking water. This Court and the Supreme Court found tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... empowering such cancellation as contained in Sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act did not confer a power to cancel retrospectively a benefit, which had been granted. The effect of Ext. P8 is to cancel the benefit which has been granted for the period from 1.1.1994 to 9.4.2002; and (2) that the Government was estopped from issuing Ext. P8 because of the promise that they have already represent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....10 of the Act. When the Government exercised the power so conferred by the statute, it cannot be made use of beyond the powers so conferred. That position is now trite. Ext. PIO exemption was granted retrospectively. That notification was issued in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act, which enabled the Government to issue a notification exempting from payment of tax either retrospect....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lity oh the appellants and other incumbents to pay tax, is ultra vires the powers conferred under Section 10(3) of the Act. 5. On that reason, the impugned judgment has to be reversed and consequently, Ext. P8 has to be quashed. In the light of these findings, there is no reason for considering the contention on promissory estoppel. 6. We have also carefully considered the contention of the Gove....