TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 448
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Respondent No.2. Facts of the case, in short, are as under :- 2. The petitioner No.1-Sonali Soya Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act in the month of June, 2002. The petitioner No.2- Sonali Soya Products was a partnership firm in existence before the formation of petitioner No.1-Company. In the year 2008, the petitioner No.1-Company was removed from the Register of ROC and is no more in existence and the present Writ Petition deals with Financial Year 2002-2003. Both the petitioner No.1-Company and petitioner No.2-Firm were engaged in business of manufacturing of oil from soyabean, flour made from husk of soyabean, etc. 3. The business of petitioner No.2-Firm was in existence upto 20.06.2002 and the business of petitioner No.1-Company came into existence from 20.06.2002. Vide order dated 30.01.2006 (Annexure P/4), the Petitioner No.2-Firm was originally assessed for the period 2002-2003 by the Adjudicating Authority vide which additional demand of Rs. 3,15,51,100/- was raised. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid original order of assessment dated 30.01.2006 for the period 2002-2003, the petitioner No.2-Firm filed a Revision Petition under Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich came to be disposed of vide order dated 13.04.2017 (Annexure - P/1) with the direction to the petitioner to file reply/objection to the recovery notices issued under Section 28(1) of the MP VAT Act. In compliance of the order of the Writ Court, the petitioner filed objection dated 06.07.2017 (Annexure- P/11) before the concerned Authority but it was never decided by the respondent/Department by non-complying with the direction of the Writ Court, the respondent/Department again initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioner. 8. Thereafter, being aggrieved with the aforesaid recovery proceedings, the petitioner again approached this Court by way of filing Writ petition No.18699/2019 which was withdrawn with liberty to file a properly constituted writ petition, thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.28913/2021 which came to be disposed of vide order dated 11.03.2022 directing the respondent-Assistant Commissioner to decide the objection within 3 weeks, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In compliance of the order dated 11.03.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.28913/2021, the petitioner approached the respondent No.3 requesting him to decide pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 19.07.2012 suffers from patent illegality and jurisdictional error. It is contended that respondent No.2 erroneously treated soya flour manufactured from soyabean husk as "flour of oil seeds", although soyabean husk is neither an oil seed nor covered under any taxable entry under the Act. Learned counsel also submits that the exemption as per Notification dated 23.04.2002 bearing Notification No.48 specifically exempted flour, cereals, pulses and husk from levy of tax and the respondent-Authorities have adopted an interpretation contrary to the language of the notification, thereby illegally denying the benefit of exemption available to the petitioners. 13. Learned counsel further submits that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of this Court passed in "M/s General Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, [(1987) 66 STC 271 (MP)]", which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "M/s General Foods Pvt. Ltd., [(1999) 9 SCC 122]" wherein the Apex court held that flour made of husk from Soya is not oil seed and is not liable to tax under the Act. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssued by respondent No. 2. showing its intention, nor has any opportunity of hearing been granted to the petitioner on the ground revision is rejected. 19. In addition to the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Revisional Authority erred in upholding the revision u/s 62(1) as maintainable against the assessment order. Although as per the relevant provision, revision u/s 62(1) can be filed against any order, except against determination of liability and against order u/s 72 of the Act. In the present case, such exceptions are not applicable. 20. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel prays that the impugned orders dated 19.07.2012, 14.10.2022 and 02.01.2026 be quashed and the petitioners be held entitled to exemption under the Notification dated 23.04.2002. Submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents. 21. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents is in support of the aforementioned impugned orders and submits that the Revisional Authority rightly exercised its powers under Section 62(3) of the MP Commercial Tax Act after noticing that the original assessment was contrary to law. 22. Lear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed under Section 28(1) in this matter is adverse to government revenue. As the said order is detrimental to public revenue, let the same be taken into revision and suo motu revision proceeding under Section 62(3) of the "Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994" be initiated. Period 2002-03 CST Revision SCHEDULE S. No. Class of goods Extent of exemption 1. Atta (flour) and besan of cereals and pulses other than imported [...] atta (flour) and besan of cereals and pulses Full 29. The above notification explicitly states flour (atta) and besan of grains (cereals) and pulses (pulses). The word 'Cereals' has been used for atta and 'Pulses' for besan. Soya is not mentioned in the said notification. Soybeans fall under oilseeds, not pulses. Furthermore, Soya Flour is not a grain (Cereal). Therefore, treating Soya Flour as cereal flour is not in accordance with the law. On behalf of the taxpayer, referencing Entry 90 and 91 of Schedule 1 of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, it was argued that Soya Flour is included in the said entry, which is tax-free. This schedule-related information submitted by the taxpayer was valid only up to the pe....