(1.) All the above numbered petitions, which are instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution, are directed against Public Circular dated September 2, 2005 issued by the Sales Tax Commissioner, State of Gujarat, whereby it is declared that the view expressed in Public Circular dated February 19, 2001 that the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Coastal Chemicals Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer, A.P. and Ors. holding that the natural gas used as fuel cannot be treated as consumable goods, is based on the language of Section 5-B of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, which is quite different from the language of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 and the Rules framed thereunder and, therefore, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Coastal Chemicals Limited (supra) is not applicable to the cases arising under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, is no longer valid in view of the decision of the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad, rendered in Second Appeal No. 683 of 2003 filed by Pandesara Industries Private Limited against State of Gujarat decided on September 28, 2004 and, therefore, Circular dated February 19, 2001 is cancelled with effect from the date of issuance of the said circular, i.e. February 19, 2001. Another common alternative relief claimed in all these petitions is to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order declaring that the circular dated September 2, 2005 revoking and/or cancelling the circular dated February 19, 2001 does not have any retrospective effect. In addition to above mentioned reliefs, the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 12104 of 2006 have prayed to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order to set aside judgment dated September 28, 2004 rendered by the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 682 of 2003, which was filed by Pandesara Industries Private Limited against State of Gujarat.
(2.) As common questions of facts and law arise for determination of the Court in these petitions and joint request is made by the learned Counsels for the parties that the petitions be disposed of by a common judgment, this Court proposes to dispose them of by this common judgment.
(3.) All the above numbered petitions can broadly be categorized into two groups, i.e. Group No. I and Group No. II. Special Civil Application Nos. 9169 of 2006 to 9190 of 2006 can be placed in Group No. I wherein it is not the case of the petitioners that they had established their respective units on the basis of any incentive scheme sponsored by the State Government nor they are claiming benefits of any exemption notification issued under Section 49(2) of the Act, but they are relying upon the language of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 ("the Act" for short) and the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970 ("the Rules" for short) to contend that the circular dated September 2, 2005 is bad in law for the reasons stated in the memorandum of petitions. As far as rest of the petitions are concerned, they can be treated as falling within Group No. II wherein the petitioners also claim that they had established their units on the basis of some incentive scheme sponsored by the State Government followed by the exemption notification issued under Section 49(2) of the Act read with the schedule to the notification and, therefore, the circular dated September 2, 2005 should be treated as bad in law and should be set aside.
ABOUT US "REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD." is a Company incorporated in 1991 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Since its inception to 1995, the Company was busy in carrying out the activities related to various Banks' Job Work..
Read More
Sales: sales@the-laws.com
Support: info@the-laws.com
8000853936
9376168072
27, 4TH FLOOR, Agrawal Center, Ashram Road, Income Tax, Ahmadabad 380014.
LOGIN