TIRUPATI MARBLES Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on November 6, 2003 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated October 8, 2003 (annexure 10) issued by the respondent No. 2, Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward No. 2, Circle Chittorgarh, by which the petitioner-firm was informed that under the notifications dated March 27, 1995 (annexure 1) and May 22, 2003 (annexure 8) issued by the State Government, the manufacture of marble slabs and units engaged therein had been keep out of the purview of exemption, be quashed and set aside and it may be held that the petitioner is entitled to exemption from sales tax up to the extent of annual turnover of Rs. 30 lakhs under the notification, annexure 1, dated March 27, 1995 from March 10, 2003. The case of the petitioner-firm as put forward by it in this writ petition is as follows :

(2.) THE case of the petitioner-firm is that in order to promote khadi and village industries, the Union of India has enacted Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956") and similarly, the State Government enacted Rajasthan Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1955") and the respective Commission and Board constituted under the Act of 1956 and the Act of 1955 register and monitor such small village industries and the individual small entrepreneurs were encouraged to set up such units for generating self employment. THE concessions and incentives include, inter alia, subsidies and exemption from sales tax, etc. One such notification granting exemption from sales tax up to the annual turnover of Rs. 30 lakhs, was issued by the State Government on March 27, 1995 a copy of which is marked as annexure 1.

(3.) IT has been further submitted by the respondents that had the petitioner-firm availed the benefit under the superseded notification, annexure 1, dated March 27, 1995 it would have not collected the sales tax from its consumers and deposited the same with the concerned check-post as is evident from annexures R/l to R/13 for the period from April, 2003 to November 19, 2003. Hence, impugned order, annexure 10, dated October 8, 2003 is perfectly legal and valid and no interference is called for with it and this petition deserves to be dismissed.