GANESH WOOLEN Vs. DISTRICT LEVEL SCREENING COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner assessee, under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 ( In short "the Act') against the order dated 3.9.2004 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (in short "the Board') in Appeal No.111/2004, whereby the claim of the petitioner was dismissed in appeal, wherein the District Level Screening Committee, Ajmer, (in short 'The Committee') rejected the application of the petitioner.

(2.) THE claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner is dealing in the business of manufacturing of Woolen Yarn and for that purpose, he took a land and also part of a building on lease from one M/s. Khatri Wool and Spinning Mills, Beawar , on lease for a period of 15 years and it was by way of a registered lease deed. The deed was registered with the Sub Registrar, Masuda, District, Ajmer. An application was moved before the Committee, however, the Committee rejected its application vide its order dated 28.3.2003. The appeal was also dismissed by the Board.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Mr. Resham Bhargava, submitted that the Committee was not justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner mainly on the premise that the petitioner did not fulfil the conditions laid-down under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme,1998 (in short 'The Scheme') as neither the petitioner was having its own land nor the land taken by it on lease was a land which was not duly converted by getting prior permission of Competent Authority/SDO. The Committee wrongly came to the conclusion that the permission is required to be obtained for carrying on the business on the aforesaid land taken on lease from a Competent Authority, therefore, in the light of the above, the claim of the petitioner was wrongly rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard relied upon the judgments of this Court rendered in the Case of M/S. Daga Chemicals Vs. State and Anr. 2001(3) WLC(Raj.)549 and also the Case of Commercial Taxes Officer, Rajsamand Vs. M/s. Ganpati Marbles and Granites Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. 2007(3) WLC (Raj.) 51 and submitted that the facts of the aforesaid judgments are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and even on rented premises claim is allowable. Thus, he submitted that even the Tax Board is unjustified in dismissing the appeal in the light of judgments of this Court.