TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 878
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... orders of Assessment dated 15.11.2013 and the Notices of Demand issued in pursuance thereof. 2. The brief facts of this case as set out in the pleadings are that the Company is registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office situated at 9th Mile, Baridua, Byrnihat, Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya. The petitioner-company is represented by Shri Pabitra Mahanta, Assistant Manager, Finance, who is interested in the day-to-day affairs of the company. All the share holders of the company are the citizens of India and, as such, they claim to be entitled to all the rights and privileges as guaranteed by the Constitution of India and the laws framed thereunder from time to time. 3. All the respondents, being official respondents are also situated in the State of Meghalaya at Shillong or Ri-Bhoi. 4. In the second petition namely, W(C) No.79/2014 also, almost same nature of prayers with similar statement as regards locus standi etc. has been made. However, the address of the registered office of the Company is shown as 10th Mile, Mawsmai village, GS Road, Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya. The Company is represented by Shri Subir Singha, AGM-Finance and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 12.12.2004. Besides, the petitioner unit in WP(C)No. 78 of 2014 had undertaken further expansion w.e.f. 15.12.2009, whereas, in the case of petitioner unit in WP(C)NO. 79 of 2014, it was undertaken on 16.12.2009. However, later a Notification was issued by the Government of Meghalaya, Department of Excise, Registration, Taxation and Stamps, whereby, in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 116 of the Meghalaya Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (Meghalaya Act 2 of 2005), the Governor of Meghalaya amended clause 2 and deleted clause 3(2)(b) of the Meghalaya Industries (Tax Remission) Scheme, 2006. The words, "on or before 30.04.2005", used after "Single Window Agency" were omitted. The proviso added to clause 3(2)(b) and the note provided thereunder appearing in the Meghalaya Industries (Tax Remission) Scheme, 2006 were also deleted. The Notification amending clause 2 was to come into force with retrospective effect namely w.e.f. 16.10.2006 and deletion of the proviso and the note thereunder in clause 3(2)(b) was to come into force with immediate effect. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the exemption and benefits provided to the units for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ithout breaking the VAT chain which was in conformity with the provision of the Act. The petitioner companies, having commenced the production on 25.3.2005 and 12.12.2004 prior to the commencement of the VAT Act were found eligible under the Meghalaya Industries (Sales Tax Exemption) Scheme 2001 as per the eligibility criteria stated in the Industrial Policy of Meghalaya 1997. However, the said benefits were withdrawn by the Notification dated 16.10.2006 meaning thereby, the benefits granted earlier vide Notification dated 12.4.2001 to all the eligible industrial units to the extent of 99% remission of VAT were declined. Besides that, the Notification dated 16.10.2006 by way of corrigendum Notification dated 2.4.2007 was made effective retrospectively from 1.10.2006. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned assessment orders and tried to justify the reasons for issuance thereof after rejecting the claims of the petitioners to seek benefits under the Industrial Policy and Schemes in question. 11. It is contended on behalf of respondents that since the petitioner unit M/s Meghalaya Bitchem Pvt. Ltd in WP(C)No. 78 of 2014 started commercial p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as comparative advantage. 3. Achieve a balanced and growth oriented development covering the entire state through promotion of village and small scale industries. 4. Create a conducive environment for industrial development by creation of the basic Infrastructural facilities and by setting up of industrial areas, growth centre and export promotion industrial park. 5. Encourage the setting up of selective medium and large industries by utilising the resource base of the state thereby ensuring sustainable industrial growth but compatible with ecological imperatives and hence encourage positive efforts towards the regeneration of the environment. 6. Provide preference to local Entrepreneurship in setting up of large, medium and small scale units. 7. Promote local interests through joint ventures with external investors so as to facilitate technology transfer and capital flow by a package of suitable incentives. 8. Encourage need based development of local entrepreneurial skills through intensive motivation and training programmes at district, Sub-division and block levels. 9. Provide guidance to prospective entrepreneurs by building up a data bank of project profiles and other ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ghalaya were eligible for grant of incentives under the Meghalaya Incentives Scheme 1997 upon fulfilling certain conditions. Under this Scheme, there was a provision for sales tax exemption, vide Para 8, for large and medium scale industries for sale of finished products for a period of seven years from the date of commercial production. It is worth noting that in the case of petitioner, M/s Bitchem Pvt. Ltd, the commercial production had started on 25.03.2005 and in the case of M/s Dyna Roof, it had commenced on 12.12.2004. Thus, they have availed the sales tax exemption for a period of seven years. In order to facilitate the benefits of the exemption, the Government of Meghalaya, Excise, Registration, Taxation and Stamps Department vide Notification dated 12.04.2001 issued the Scheme called the Meghalaya Industries (Sales Tax Exemption) Scheme 2001 and it was deemed to have come into force with effect from 12.08.1997. The period of exemption was available for seven years from the date of commercial production as reported and recorded by the Meghalaya Industrial Development Corporation. The exemption from payment of sales tax was on the sale of finished products within the State o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of authorisation on 16.03.2007 by the Superintendent of Taxes, which was to remain valid in respect of commercial production upto 31.03.2005. Thus, it appears, that respondent No.4, namely the Managing Director, Meghalaya Industrial Development Corporation Ltd issued an Eligibility Certificate under the Meghalaya Industrial Policy, 1997, wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner company was eligible for claiming incentives as per Meghalaya Industrial Policy, 1997 which came into force with effect from 15.8.1997. The petitioner company was also issued a certificate of authorisation by its Assessing Officer in terms of the Meghalaya Industries (Sales Tax Exemption) Scheme, 2001. 18. Thereafter, the Department of Excise, Registration, Taxation and Stamps, Government of Meghalaya, on 16.10.2006 issued the following Notification : "GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA EXCISE, REGISTRATION, TAXATION AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR NOTIFICATIONS The 16th October, 2006. No.ERTS(T)64/98/313: In supersession of of Government Notification No.ERTS(T) 64/98/88 dt. 12.04.2001 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 5 of Se3ction 8 of the Central Sales Tax 1956 the Gove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....all pay CST @ 1% provided the sale is made to a registered dealer outside the State or to the Government. Sales to others will attract normal rates of CST. Other industrial units which are eligible to 96% remission of VAT under the proviso to para 3(2) (b) of the Meghalaya Industries (Tax Remission) Scheme, 2006 shall pay CST 9 at normal rates as provided under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. This Notification shall come into force with immediate effect. Sd/- B.K. Dev Verma Principal Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Excise, Registration, Taxation & Stamps Department". However, on the same date, yet another Notification No.ERTS(T)64/98/314 dated 16.10.2006 was issued by the Governor as a part of the Scheme of 2006 whereby the Governor of Meghalaya withdrew the benefits of exemption from payment of Central Sales Tax granted earlier by the Department's Notification No.ERTS (T) 98/88 dated 12.4.2001 which was superseded by Notification No. ERTS(T) 64/98/211 dated 5.9.2005. The Notification No.ERTS(T) 64/98/314 dated 16.10.2006 was to come into force with immediate effect. Moreover, subsequent thereto, a corrigendum was issued by Notification dated 2.4.2007 giving the Notifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2006. As noticed hereinabove, we do not find anything in any of the provisions of the Meghalaya Industrial Policy of 1997; the Meghalaya Industries (Tax Exemption) Scheme 2001 and the Meghalaya Industries (Tax Remission) Scheme 2006 to say that the second time benefits of tax remission would be available to the petitioners. Moreover, the Govt. of Meghalaya vide letter No. ERTS(T)64/98/496 dated 20.12.2011 has already clarified that the petitioner industrial units would be eligible for sales tax incentives even in respect of expanded products only up to the date of eligibility based on the First Eligibility Certificate issued upon establishment of the units as new industrial units. Besides, it is a case of the petitioner units that since they had undertaken expansion and production before the 2012 Policy called "Meghalaya Industrial & Investment Promotion Policy, 2012" came into force, therefore, they were not claiming any benefits thereunder. Further, the submission of the petitioner that the Single Window Agency (SWA) clearance for undertaking expansion work was a clear promise to the petitioner that the company would be eligible for 99% remission of tax under the Scheme of 2006 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petitioner units were covered by the first part of definition of the eligibility and, as such, from the dates of their commercial production, they were entitled to get tax exemption and remission only for seven years. 25. As regards the judgment cited by learned senior counsel for the petitioner in Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (ASST) Dharwar and others v. Dharmendra Trading Company and others, reported in (1988) 3 SCC 570, the ratio of the same may not be applicable in the facts of this case, for the reason that the petitioner units had been granted exemption under the Meghalaya Industrial Policy 1997 and the Meghalaya (Sales Tax Exemption) Scheme of 2001 for 7 (seven) years which they had already enjoyed. Moreover, the judgment does not deal with the issue involved herein, namely, as to whether a newly established Industrial unit having already availed the benefits of exemption and remission under the initial Eligibility Certificate and letter of authorization would be entitled to claim the benefits of remission for the second time under a new scheme, namely, the Meghalaya Industries (Tax Remission) Scheme 2006 on the basis of subsequent Eligibility Certificate....