RAMA PHOSPHATES LTD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-company, Rama Phosphates Ltd., has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned assessment order and the order passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Inspection, Audit and Recovery), Sales Tax Department, Jaipur, annexure 18 dated November 19, 2008, inter alia, denying the benefit of Incentive Scheme, 1987, notified under section 4 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. The petitioner-company, upon making eligible investment within the State of Rajasthan was given the requisite eligibility certificate under the said Incentive Scheme, 1987 vide annexure P/3 for the period January 20, 1998 to January 20, 2005 for the eligible investment to the extent of Rs. 390.28 lacs. The petitioner availed of the said benefit of exemption from the sales tax under the said Incentive Scheme in pursuance of the said eligibility certificate granted to it in the contemporary period between January 21, 1998 to January 20, 2005.

(2.) Thereafter the petitioner-company unfortunately turned sick and was registered with the BIFR under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and a scheme of rehabilitation was framed for the petitioner-company by the BIFR constituted under the provision of said Act.

(3.) After the period of eligibility certificate was over, the respondents-authorities of Commercial Taxes Department, initiated the impugned assessment and recovery proceedings against the petitioner-company on the ground that during the financial year 2005-06, after the incentive period of the petitioner was over on January 20, 2005, the petitioner-company had made more than 20 per cent of its production as branch transfers of goods for sales outside the State of Rajasthan, namely, SSP (single super phosphate) and GSSP (granulated single super phosphate) by it, and thus it breached the condition No. 4(e) of the said Incentive Scheme of 1987; and therefore, denying the benefit of the exemption under the Incentive Scheme from the sales tax for the past period, which was already availed of by it, the due sales tax was liable to be recovered from the petitioner-company. Accordingly, the assessing authority undertook the assessment proceedings against the petitioner-company and raised demand of tax, interest and penalty against the petitioner. The petitioner-company had to approach, in these circumstances by way of present writ petitions, a batch of 9 writ petitions which are being decided by this common order today.