TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 823
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able from the date of issuance of exemption/entitlement certificate. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of special and alloys steel for use in automobile and engineering industry. New rolling mill was set up by the petitioner. As per Punjab Package of Incentives, 1992, as notified on 28.9.1992, the petitioner was eligible to claim benefit of exemption from payment of sales tax for a period of 84 months, subject to a maximum of 150% of fixed capital investment. The unit came into production on 15.9.1993. The application was submitted for issuance of eligibility certificate and consequently the exemption certificate. The application remained pending and finally after a period of 6-1/2 years from the date of production that the eligibility certificate was issued on 3.3.2000. Thereafter, the exemption certificate was issued on 18.4.2000. The period of validity was from 15.9.1993 till 14.9.2000. Meaning thereby the period for which the petitioner could claim benefit of exemption was merely five months. As per Rule 3(2) of the Rules, the benefit is admissible to an eligible industrial unit only after the eligibility certif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... adjustment of the excess tax, if any, paid under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Act'). It was on the premise that the order passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner was non-speaking. The matter was heard by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, who vide order dated 13.10.2003, rejected the claim of the petitioner. It was for the first time that before the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, the petitioner raised the issue for extension of time for availing the benefit. The order attained finality as the petitioner did not avail of its appropriate remedy against that order at that stage. Thereafter, the petitioner addressed a letter to the then Chief Minister, Punjab. After considering the request made therein by the Financial Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, Punjab, decision was communicated to the Chairman of the petitioner vide letter dated 31.10.2006. Even at that stage, no remedy was availed of by the petitioner. He filed a fresh representation on 15.1.2007 now praying for extension of time for availing the exemption. The same was rejected by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner vide communication dated 16.8.2011. It was challenged by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the expiry of the eligibility period was only for refund of the tax deposited during the period of exemption. When the same was rejected, a new plea of extension of period of exemption was raised. By no stretch of imagination, the petitioner could claim the same. He further submitted that the facts in the case of M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. are different than the case in hand. It was a case of deferment of payment of tax. In that case, amendment was made in the Rules. Neither the vires of that Rule have been challenged nor M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. has been impleaded as respondent in the petition, hence, the petitioner cannot claim any relief on that basis. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any reason to interfere in the present petition. As is claimed by the petitioner, the unit set up by it for manufacture of special and alloys steels for use in automobile and engineering sectors came into production on 15.9.1993. It applied for issuance of eligibility certificate. The same was granted to the petitioner on 3.3.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted exemption certificate on 18.4.2000. The validity thereof was from 15.9.1993 to 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e & Taxation Commissioner was nonspeaking. The communication dated 25.11.2002 was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Excise & Taxation Commissioner to hear and decide the same afresh by passing a speaking order. The writ petition was disposed of on 15.7.2003. Thereafter, the Excise & Taxation Commissioner heard the petitioner and rejected the prayer made by the petitioner for refund of the tax charged and deposited by it with the State on 13.10.2003. The claim made by the petitioner that in fact it had not charged the tax from the buyer and had paid the same from its own resources was also considered and rejected. It was at that stage that the petitioner also made a prayer to the Excise & Taxation Commissioner to extend the period of eligibility for the period the application remained pending with the authorities for grant of eligibility and exemption certificates. The same was also rejected vide letter dated 13.10.2003. As per the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, appeal from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules by the Excise & Taxation Commissioner or any officer exercising the powers of the Commissioner was maintainable before the Tribunal. The p....