TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 175
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the applicant is entitled for the benefit for unavailed tax at the shifted premises? (3) Whether the notification dated March 24, 2005 prescribing the procedure for claiming the unavailed benefit of tax is retrospective in nature? and (4) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Rajasthan Tax Board was justified in holding that as per clause 3(3) benefit cannot be given to unit at shifted premises?." 3. The brief facts of the case as emerging on the face of record is that the petitioner is a private limited company and established a new industry at Norangpura, Tehsil, Sambhar District, Jaipur and was granted eligibility certificate under the New Incentive Scheme, 1989 for sales tax exemption from June 24, 1996 to June 23, 2003, i.e., for a period of seven years. The petitioner was to make fixed capital investment to the tune of Rs. 90.72 lac and accordingly, the petitioner complied with the directives. 4. Subsequently, on account of defective supply of the main plant power connection from rural feeder, non-availability of skilled labourers and lack of infrastructure facility, the unit could not run smooth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on was also rejected by the committee vide order dated May 28, 2003. 6. The learned counsel Mr. Vivek Singhal, appearing on behalf of the petitioner after referring to these facts submitted that the petitioner-assessee was granted the benefit for establishing a new industrial unit and because of reasons stated earlier, the petitioner suffered heavy losses and was having no alternative except to shift it to Jaipur. He further submitted that since, the benefit was conferred to the new industrial unit whether established at Sambhar or at any other place, the benefit should have been allowed, it is not that incentive was granted because of the reason that the industrial unit was set up at Sambhar. He drew attention of the court on the eligibility certificate and submitted that eligibility certificate does not mention anything that incentive is being granted for the reason that it had been established at Sambhar or otherwise. It was further pleaded that extreme view has been taken by the Board as well as by the District Level Screening Committee. He further submitted that had this unit been sold to any other outsider or third party, the purchaser would have availed of Incentive Scheme ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... definition of sub-clause (3) of section 3 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, the incentive was denied and the Tax Board is quite justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner and no infirmity is noticed in the order passed by the Tax Board. 9. Mr. Kasliwal, also relied upon the judgment of the honourable apex court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1991] 83 STC 234 (SC), Union of India v. Wood Papers Ltd. [1991] 83 STC 251 (SC) and also the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I v. Parle Exports (P.) Ltd. [1989] 75 STC 105 (SC); [1990] 183 ITR 624 (SC). He also submitted that the notification dated March 24, 2005 is much later and speaks of benefits accruing subsequently and cannot be said to have retrospective operation. 10. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, have gone through the various judgments passed by the various authorities and the order impugned. I am satisfied with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case, since incentive was granted to the new industrial unit, for a period of seven ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t on receipt of the application from the unit, the assessing authority having jurisdiction, shall after having conducting such enquiry as it may deem proper, determine the extent of the amount and the period of availment, for which the unit is eligible to avail the unavailed benefits under this notification. However, in no case the maximum benefit permissible under this notification should exceed the unavailed benefits in terms of eligible fixed capital investment and the time period; 6. that the shifted unit shall have to comply with all the terms and conditions of the original notification conferring benefits to the unit before being shifted; 7. that in case of violation of any of the terms or conditions of this notification and/or the original notification conferring benefits to the unit, the benefits conferred under both the notifications shall stand withdrawn by the assessing authority, after seeking approval from the Commissioner in this behalf. [F. 12(20)FD/Tax/2005-186] By order of the Governor, (Ajitabh Sharma) Deputy secretary to the Government." 11. The honourable apex court in the case ....