REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

SHREE CHEMICALS AND MINERALS Appellant

V/S

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

DEVSHREE CEMENT LTD. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
A V FERNANDEZ VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
GURSAHAI SAIGAL IN ALL APPEALS VS. COMMISSIONER OF I T PUNJAB IN ALL APPEALS [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX MADRAS O V R SV SR ARUNACHALAM CRETTAR VS. V MR P FIRM MUAR O R M O M A M CHIDAMBARAM CHETTIAR THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MADRAS O RM SP SV FIRM [REFERRED TO]
PATEL CHUNIBHAI DAJIBHA VS. NARAYANRAO KHANDERAO JAMBEKAR ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
MARTIN BUM LIMITED VS. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
GULAM YASIN KHAN VS. SAHEBRAO YESHWANTRAO WALASKAR [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM KISHORI DEVI VS. PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
SALES TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 1 JABALPUR VS. HANUMAN PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
HANSRAJ GORDHANDAS VS. H H DAVE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS SURAT [REFERRED TO]
MARTAND DAIRY AND FARM VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY GUJARAT R RANGANAYAKI AMMAL VS. KANTILAL TRIKAMLAL:THE CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
LOHIA MACHINES LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MEMBER SECRETARY ANDHRA PRADESH STATE BOARD FOR PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF WATER POLLUTION VS. ANDHRA PRADESH RAYONS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE BOMBAY 1 VS. PARLE EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. WOOD PAPERS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
MANGALORE CHEMICALS FERTILISERS LIMITED VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [REFERRED TO]
SARASWATI SUGAR MILLS VS. HARYANA STATE BOARD [REFERRED TO]
AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SHARADKUMAR JAYANTIKUMAR PASAWALLA [REFERRED TO]
NOVOPAN INDIA LIMITED HYDERABAD VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS HYDERABAD [REFERRED TO]
SATNAM SINGH S K SINGAL VS. PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT:HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH CH PATNAIK NALINIKANTA MOHAPATRA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
ARUL NADAR VS. AUTHORISED OFFICER LAND REFORMS [REFERRED TO]
ORISSA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]
V V S SUGARS VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MATHURAM AGRAWAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RAEES AHMAD VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MOOL CHAND VS. KEDAR [REFERRED TO]
KADIYALA RAMA RAO VS. GUTALA KAHNA RAO [REFERRED TO]
KARAMCHARI UNION AGRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MOLAR MAL DEAD VS. KAY IRON WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
TRAVANCORE RUBBER AND TEA COMPANY LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TRIVANDTRUM [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BHOPAL VS. HINDUSTAN ELECTOR GRAPHITES LTD [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -

(2.) THE instant writ petition has been filed for issuing direction to the respondents to modify the Scheme for Granting Exemption of Sales Tax with effect from the date of grant of Eligibility Certificate and not to give effect to it from the date of application.

(3.) PETITIONER had completed the application on 24.5.93 and there is ample evidence on record to show that immediately after the grant of benefit of the Scheme vide order dated 28.1.94, petitioner came to know about the said benefit. PETITIONER wrote a letter to the Commercial Taxes Officer on 17.2.94 and subsequently on 4.4.94 demanding the eligibility certificate. As petitioner had not been granted the eligibility certificate for two years and seven months, it ought to have approached the higher authorities or the writ court to issue direction to the Department to grant eligibility certificate. PETITIONER was fully aware of the fact that by the eligibility certificate dated 28.1.94 (Annex.1) granted exemption for a period of seven years from the date of application and if petitioner was aggrieved by the said order, it ought to have filed an appeal under Clause (6) of the Incentive Scheme, 1989 to the Tribunal. PETITIONER, for the reason best known to it, did not go in appeal against the order; accepted it, took benefit of the Scheme and challenged it when it was informed that it was no more entitled to take benefit of the scheme. PETITIONER's conduct is not approaching the higher authorities/the Court for issuing directions to the competent authority to issue the eligibility certificate and further not challenging the eligibility certificate in appeal, disentitles him for any relief at such a belated stage.

Click here to view full judgment.

SHREE CHEMICALS AND MINERALS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address