TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 716
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yment of sales tax was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of caustic soda and other in-organic chemicals. It had been promoted by the Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (for short, 'PSIDC'), which is wholly owned Punjab Government Company. PSIDC holds 44% shares of the petitioner-company. New Industrial Policy, 1996 (hereinafter described as "the 1996 Policy") was notified by the Government on 20.3.1996, which provided for various benefits to the new industrial units as well as the industrial units expanding their capacity. The petitionercompany was incorporated in the year 1975 and came into commercial ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner-company also made a request to the Principal Secretary, Department of Industries in the same line. The issue was considered in the meeting held under the Chairmanship of the then Chief Secretary on 13.1.2010 and it was decided that PSIDC should move a case for extension. Thereafter, PSIDC made a request on 11/26.2.2010 to the Financial Commissioner, Department of Excise & Taxation. PSIDC vide communication dated 3.6.2010 conveyed the petitioner that request for extension of period was rejected by the Department of Excise and Taxation vide memo dated 24.5.2010. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed CWP No. 15831 of 2013-Punjab Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. v. Government of Punjab and others, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 26.7.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n adhered to. He further referred to the fact that in similar circumstances, M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., was granted extension. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that once the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to avail of its appropriate remedy, the same was not by way of a representation, rather, the petitioner should have availed of its statutory remedy provided under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Act'). The same could not be a fresh representation. He further submitted that application for issuance of eligibility certificate filed by the petitioner was initially rejected vide communication dated 11.10.1999 as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of production. It was strictly in terms of the provisions of the Rules. First representation by the petitioner was made on 22.9.2008. After considering the fact that PSIDC had substantial stake in the company, the matter was considered at different levels and was finally rejected on 24.5.2010, which was conveyed to PSIDC as well as the petitioner-company. The order was impugned by the petitioner more than three years thereafter by filing CWP No. 15831 of 2013, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail of any other remedy in accordance with law. The delay in filing the writ petition impugning the rejection of the claim of the petitioner has not been explained at all. Thereafter, again without availing the statutory remedy as pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heme of taxation has changed with the introduction of Value Added Tax. The units, which were allowed exemption or deferment from payment of tax under the Act, were permitted to avail of the benefits under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, but it is too late now to grant benefits. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 9. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that expanded capacity of the petitioner to manufacture caustic soda came into commercial production on 18.12.1998. As per the provisions of the Rules, the petitioner applied for issuance of eligibility certificate for availing the benefit of exemption from payment of tax. The application was initially rejected as the petitioner failed to fulfi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny, had 44% stake, but still as the request of the petitioner could not be acceded to in view of the clear provisions of the Rules, the same was rejected vide communication dated 24.5.2010. It was conveyed to PSIDC as well as the petitioner. The petitioner kept quiet and was satisfied with the decision so conveyed, though at that time the petitioner could have availed of its statutory remedy under the Act. For the first time, CWP No. 15831 of 2013 was filed in this court impugning the communication dated 3.6.2010, more than three years thereafter. There is no explanation for this delay. The same was dismissed on 26.7.2013 with the following order: "After addressing arguments for some time, counsel for the petitioner prays that the writ p....