TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 246
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). In order to appreciate the petitioner's challenge to the impugned order, few facts need mention, which are stated hereinafter. 2. The respondent is a public limited company registered under the Act and is engaged in the manufacture of MS Ingots, billets and other products of iron and steel out of iron scrap. A Government Order dated 30.06.1969 read with Government Order dated 25.11.1969 was issued under which government offered cash refund of sales tax paid by new industrial units in erstwhile state of Mysore, on raw materials purchased by the units for the first five years from the date the industry went into production. It is the case of the respondent that acting on the G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Finance Department on 08.07.1992. In the aforesaid communication, it was stated that the respondent had taken all effective steps before the cut off date mentioned in the Government Order dated 04.04.1975 and the respondent is entitled for incentive of the cash refund of sales tax paid on raw materials in terms of Government Order dated 30.06.1969 read with Government Order dated 08.07.1976. 4. However, after about four years, State Government retracted from the clarification given in its communication dated 08.07.1992 and issued an order dated 22.02.1996 taking a stand that many steel plant set up by the respondent commenced production from April 1977 and in the light of the Government Order dated 08.01.1976, incentives and conc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....strial units whose investment in fixed assets did not exceed Rs. 10 Lakhs. The revisional authority by an order dated 29.05.2001 set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority. 6. Thereupon, the respondent filed an appeal before the tribunal. The tribunal by a judgment dated 16.05.2003 allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent. Thereupon, the Government of Karnataka approached this court by filing a revision under Section 23 of the Act viz., S.T.R.P.No.121/2004, which was disposed of by a bench of this court and the matter was remitted to the tribunal for decision in the light of observation made in the order passed by a bench of this court. The tribunal vide judgment dated 26.10.2006 decided the matter. However, this court a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the applicability of Government Order dated 04.04.1975 read with Government Order dated 08.01.1976, wherein it was clarified that only those industries established prior to 01.01.1975 will be governed by Government Order dated 30.06.1969. Therefore, the tribunal has decided the question of law with regard to applicability of the Government Orders erroneously. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Department of Industries and Commerce, Government of Karnataka issued two certificates to the respondent viz., a new unit certificate certifying that the respondent started production of mild steel Ingots with effect from 14.04.1977 and first sale invoice was issued on 16.04.1977 and therefore, the unit of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssing Authority under Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 for refund of sales tax paid on raw materials with supporting documents. However, by a subsequent Government Order dated 04.04.1975, the cash refund sanctioned by earlier Government Order was discontinued. Thereafter, a Government Order dated 12.01.1977 was issued by the Government of Karnataka while making reference to Government Orders dated 30.06.1969, 04.04.1975 and 17.11.1975. The relevant extract of the aforesaid order dated 12.01.1977 reads as under: 1. The concession of refund of sales tax on raw materials used by new enterprises should be limited to 10 per cent of the cost of fixed assets per year, thus not exceeding the total of 50 per cent, over a period of five years for ....