2014 (2) TMI 1138

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the Madhya Pradesh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1994") fixed the rate of tax on cattle feed and poultry feed at two per cent. for the period with effect from April 1, 2000 to March 31, 2004. The period was extended up to March 31, 2005. The petitioner was in the manufacturing of soya oil and mustered oil. In the aforesaid process oil-cake and de-oiled cake were also produced. In Schedule II of Part V at entry 51 of the Act of 1994, "oil-cake including de-oiled cake and soyameal" was mentioned and at entry 16 "cattle feed, poultry feed and aquatic feed" was mentioned. A copy of the notification has been filed as annexure R/1 along with the reply. Entry No.16 mentioned in part V of Chapter 1, Sc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bility criteria. It was specifically held that the exemption has to be construed strictly." The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Ram Chandra Asha Ram (Decd.) Through L.Rs. reported in [2001] 123 STC 415 (SC); [2001] 9 SCC 313 and pleaded that de-oiled cake includes cattle fodder. However, the aforesaid judgment is in different circumstances. In the present case, there are two types of entries and in the entries goods have been defined separately. Hence in our opinion, the authorities have rightly held that the exemption notification would not be applicable in the case of oil-cake, de-oiled cake and soyameal. The authorities hav....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. Those in charge of the affairs of the company in failing to register the company as a dealer acted in the honest and genuine belief that the company was not a dealer. Granting that they erred, no case for imposing penalty was made out." The honourable Supreme Court in Kesar Enterprises Ltd. v. State of U.P. reported in [2011] 10 GSTR 279 (SC); [2011] 13 SCC 733, has held that imposition of penalty is a quasi-judicial function and the rules of natural justice would be applicable in the proceedings of imposition of penalty. The honourable Supreme Court has held as under (page 290 in 10 GSTR): "31. . . . Undoubtedly, an action under the said rule is a qua....