SURYA ROSHNI LTD. Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As all the aforesaid petitioner arise out of the same controversy, they are being decided by this common order.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from W.P. No.7622/2014, which, in short, are as under:-

(3.) Shri Pawan Dwivedi learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on one hand, the State Government has inserted explanation (d) to Clause (u) of Sec. 2 of the VAT Act by way of amendment in the years 2009 and 2010 thereby making every transfer of good between two units of a dealer liable for tax @ 12.5 % if both the units are having separate registration, and on the other hand the State has declined to grant exemption to the petitioner in the absence of separate registration certificate of its PCB Assembly Manufacturing Unit. The respondent has given a wrong interpretation to condition No.4. If the petitioner is required to obtain separate registration to get the benefit of exemption notification under the Entry Tax Exemption Scheme 2004, then the petitioner will have to pay the entry tax @ 12.5% for transfer of PCB from one unit to another unit.