TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 572
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ture of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.02.2018 passed by the 5th Respondent in NO CI 51 SPI 2015 in the Petitioner's case (Annexure Z12). (ii) This Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to declare that the Petitioner is entitled for exemption from payment of sales tax on the sales turnover of finished products namely molasses, bagasse and filter mud as per G.O. No. CI 30 SPC 96 dated 15-03-1996 read with notification No. FD 32 CSL 96 (I) dated 15-11-1996 despite the Petitioner enjoying the benefit of purchase tax deferment as per G.O. No. CI 140 FMI 71 dated 06-06-1973 in the Petitioner's case (Annexure "G") and for the consequential order restraining the respondent from levying or collecting any sales tax from the Petitioner on the sales turnover of molasses, bagasse and filter mud for any assessment year or years from the very inception and to direct the refund of the sales tax so collected from the Petitioner with such reasonable interest as the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct in this behalf. (iii) This Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to direct the second respondent to issue FAVC enabling the Petitioner to claim exemptio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igible for the deferment of purchase tax for first ten years. 6. The Petitioner then made a request to SLCC [State Level Co-ordination Committee] vide letter dated January 31, 2001 seeking for sales tax exemption on the turnover of molasses and bagasse and filter mud, however, no sales tax exemption was extended to molasses, bagasse and filter mud on the premise that they are by-products of sugar and the Industrial Policy covered only finished products. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.P. Nos. 32700-32702/2002 before this Court, with a prayer inter alia for quashing the said letter. The writ petition was allowed and the matter was remitted for reconsideration. 7. After the remand, the AO [Assessing Officer] disallowed the claim for exemption from payment of sales tax on molasses, bagasse and filter mud for the A.Y. [Assessment Year] 1999-2000 to 2003-04. The First Appellate Authority [JCCT(A)[Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)]] and Karnataka Appellate Tribunal [KAT] dismissed the petitioner's appeals and confirmed AO's Order. The petitioner has challenged KAT's Order in STRP No. 353-356/2017 considered simultaneously with this writ petition. 8. Further, vid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....€¢ the Tribunal erred in not granting exemption from payment of tax on the sale of molasses, bagasse etc., inspite of exemption granted under the Industrial Policy 1996-2001; • the Tribunal erred in holding that dual benefit of tax is not available to the petitioner. Petitioner being a 'thrust' industry was entitled for the benefit of deferral of purchase tax on sugarcane which is independent and distinct; • the Industrial Policy 1996-2001 does not specifically prohibit the availment of sales tax exemption if purchase tax deferral benefit has been availed; • therefore, it is incorrect to say that granting of sales tax exemption if petitioner is already enjoying the benefit of deferral of purchase tax on sugarcane would amount to dual benefit. • the petitioner has to pay back the purchase tax as interest free loan to the Commercial Tax Department after expiry of ten years moratorium period; • petitioner's FAVC is unjustly denied resulting in the denial of benefit of sales tax exemption; • in the year 2000, SLCC has granted FAVC to Chamundeshwari for sales tax exemption on molasses, bagasses etc., even t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....exempted, the by-products generated while manufacturing the main product i.e., white crystal sugar, the exemption cannot be extended to the by-products; • it is settled that fiscal statutes have to be construed strictly. Therefore, the exemption notification has to be construed strictly and where there is any ambiguity, the interpretation shall be in favour of Revenue; • petitioner's contention that an exemption from payment of Sales Tax has been extended to another industry is untenable; • further, the exemption granted in favor of another factory is under a different policy i.e., Industrial Policy, 1993, which is not applicable to the petitioner in the present case; • the expression "manufacture" and "production" are distinctively considered. The word "production" is wider in ambit and it has a wider connotation than the word "manufacture". The word "production" takes into fold all by-products, inter-mediatory products and residual products which emerge in the course of manufacture of goods; • the petitioner have approached this Court belatedly. Therefore, the court before granting relief has to satisfy itself that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....communication dated February 22, 2018 (Annexure Z-12) addressed to the Commissioner of Industries & Commerce, the Secretary to the Government has noted thus: "8) Since subsequently the Government in its Order No. CI 103 SPI 2011, dated 23.02.2013 has decided that Chamundeshwari Sugar Industries Limited is eligible for Sales Tax exemption on the by- products, the issue of providing Sales Tax exemption to ICL sugars, if it is on the same footing as Chamundeshwari, would need to be addressed by the State Level Co-ordination Committee. Further, the issue of double benefit that has arisen in the present case would equally apply to the Sales Tax exemption provided in the case of Chamundeshwari sugars." and conveyed that petitioner's request cannot be considered. A careful perusal of the above text clearly indicates that the Commerce Secretary has conceded that the petitioner's claim of parity with that of Chamundeshwari needs to be considered by the SLCC. If that be so the matter ought to have been referred to SLCC, whereas the Commerce Secretary has stated that petitioner's case cannot be considered. On the face of it, the State Government have discriminated among t....