TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1127
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). Under the said Policy, the petitioner was to get tax benefit, both under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Pursuant to the said Policy, the Finance Department of the Government of Assam had issued a notification dated 03.11.2009 and as per Clause 3(3), the petitioner is to get the benefit of such exemption. Vide a communication dated 20.09.2010, the petitioner was granted the Eligibility Certificate for claiming incentives under Industrial Policy of Assam, 2008 and for claiming exemption of tax under the Assam Industries (Tax Exemption) Scheme, 2009. The date of commencement of commercial production was stated to be 26.08.2009. Under Serial No. 9 of the Eligibility Certificate, the petitioner was to get exemption for a period of 7 years starting from 26.06.2009 to 25.06.2016 for Rs.687.54 lacs. Pursuant thereto, a Certificate of Entitlement was also granted to the petitioner for the aforesaid period. The dispute however is with regard to the period ending 2010-11 when the petitioner had filed for exemption and vide the impugned assessment order dated 21.08.2013 such exemption was rejected. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lt with the provisions of Section 8(4) of the Act and the requirement of its compliance to get the benefit under Section 8(5). 7. The Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Techer Power Solution Pvt. Ltd. (supra) had laid down that the assessee must prove that they have not passed on Tax liability to the consumers to claim refund. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (supra) has laid down that a notification by the State under Section 8(5) waving or lowering the rate of tax cannot be challenged except on the ground that no public interest was involved. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly submits that the writ petition be interfered with. 10. Per contra, Shri Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Finance & Taxation Department has submitted that the writ petition is devoid of any merits. By referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 2 on 15.03.2019, he has submitted that the notification dated 03.11.2009 is based on Section 8(5) wherein the requirement of submission of "C Form" is mandatory. He has submitted that it is only by such "C Forms" that a sale is established and the sam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tate under the sales tax law of that State. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, a dealer shall be deemed to be a dealer liable to pay tax under the sales tax law of the appropriate State, notwithstanding that he, in fact, may not be so liable under that law. (3) The goods referred to in sub-section (1)- (b) are goods of the class or classes specified in the certificate of registration of the registered dealer purchasing the goods as being intended for re-sale by him or subject to any rules made by the Central Government in this behalf, for use by him in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or in the telecommunications network or in mining or in the generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power; (c) are containers or other materials specified in the certificate of registration of the registered dealer purchasing the goods, being containers or materials intended for being used for the packing of goods for sale; (d) are containers or other materials used for the packing of any goods or classes of goods specified in the certificate of registration referred to in clause (b) or for the packing o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e that even if the petitioner does not furnish such declaration, they cannot be deprived of the rebate. Such submission is not acceptable, in view of the clear requirement of the statute. This Court has also carefully examined the impugned orders and there is a mention that even in a best scenario case, the petitioner would not be entitled to the rebate. This Court has also noticed that in fact the Revisional Authority has noted that while making the assessment, certain amount has been given in excess as rebate which however was not interfered in the revisional jurisdiction. The relevant observations made by the said authority are extracted hereinbelow- "The implication even for the best scenario in regard, to the Petitioner is that, against the allowed partial exemption of 99% of the payable tax amount under VAT and Central sales Tax at Rs. 11,59,305/- in the assessment order under challenge, the legally allowable quantum of tax on which 99% remission is available, works out only at Rs. 10,77,094/- which is lower than that allowed by the Assessing officer. Since no order prejudicial to the Petitioner can be passed under the present proceedings taken up under Section 82(2)....