MIHIJAM VANASPATI LTD. Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND, COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these writ application the petitioner seeks direction upon the respondents to issue the statutory Form Cha to which petitioner is entitled in the capacity of an exempted Unit under the Notification No. S.O.96 dated 4.4.1994 for the sales made by it during the period 2001 -02, 2002 -03, 2003 -04 and 2004 -05 as the petitioner has already paid the applicable TOT and surcharge over such sale.

(2.) PETITIONERS case is that it is a registered Dealer under the provisions of the Bihar Finance Act as well as Central Sales Tax Act. under the Deoghar Circle, Deoghar. Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of vegetable and refined edible oil. Petitioner having started the production on 30.3.1995 was eligible for sales tax exemption for the period of 10 years as per the Industrial Incentive Policy of 1993 and S.O. 96 dated 4.4.1994 issued under the provisions of Bihar Finance Act, 1981. Vide order dated 29.9.1995 petitioner Unit was granted exemption from sales -tax for the period 30.3.1995 to 29.3.2005 i.e. for a period of 10 years in the light of Notification. No. S.O.96 dated 4.4.1994 of the Commercial Taxes Department. Petitioners case is that in terms of the conditions of the exemption petitioner was required to pay TOT and Surcharge over the sale of its finished products before getting authenticated Form Cha so that same could be issued to the customers/purchasers of its finished products. Petitioners case is that on getting exemption from the Sales Tax over its finished products, petitioner used to sale its finished products to its customers from 1995 to 2001 and also used to obtain the authenticated Form Cha from the Office of the respondents in order to facilitate them to claim sales tax exemption over such exempted products at the time of assessment. However, since 2001, respondents without any reason whatsoever stopped authenticated Form Cha thereby causing irreparable damage to the petitioner. Petitioner said to have made repeated request and filed representation to the authorities for issuance of authenticated Form Cha. Petitioner said to have facing multiplicity of problems and complications for non -issuance of the said Form. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) PETITIONER has challenged those orders by filing separate writ petition being WPT No. 3397 of 2006. Since in these two writ petitions, common question of law and facts are involved, the same are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.