Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Commercial Taxes Officer, ... vs M/S Nitin Spinners Ltd on 22 March, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Vinod Kumar Bharwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Sales Tax Ref./rev. No. 31/2021
Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-A, Bhilwara, Circle-A, Bhilwara
----Petitioner
Versus
M/s Nitin Spinners Ltd., 16-17 Km Stone, Chittor Road,
Hamirgarh, Bhilwara
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Sales Tax Ref./rev. No. 26/2021
Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-A, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara
----Petitioner
Versus
M/s Nitin Spinners Ltd., 16-17 Km Stone, Chittor Road,
Hamirgarh, Bhilwara
----Respondent
D.B. Sales Tax Ref./rev. No. 28/2021
Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-A, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara
----Petitioner
Versus
M/s Nitin Spinners Ltd., 16-17 Km Stone, Chittor Road,
Hamirgarh, Bhilwara
----Respondent
D.B. Sales Tax Ref./rev. No. 29/2021
Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-A, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara
----Petitioner
Versus
M/s Nitin Spinners Ltd., 16-17 Km Stone, Chittor Road,
Hamirgarh, Bhilwara
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Bhandari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharad Kothari
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
JUDGMENT
Date of pronouncement : 22/03/2022
Order reserved on : 20/01/2022
BY THE COURT : PER HON'BLE MEHTA, J.
(2 of 4) [STR-31/2021]
These four Sales Tax Revisions have been preferred by the
Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle A, Bhilwara for assailing common
orders dated 03.03.2021 passed by Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer in
four appeals preferred by the petitioner-Commercial Taxes Officer,
challenging the consolidated order dated 08.05.2019 passed by
the Appellate Authority, Commercial Taxes Department, Ajmer.
The Tax Board affirmed the order of the Appellate Authority who
had in turn, accepted the appeals of the assessee and quashed the
assessment orders issued by the Commercial Taxes Officer
imposing tax, liability and interest against the respondent
assessee for the years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and
2014-2015.
Shri Sunil Bhandari, learned counsel representing the
petitioners has tried to formulate the following questions of law,
seeking admission of these revisions.
"A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tax Board was justified in holding that
the Deferment Scheme dt. 31.03.2006 was not
mandatory and further quashing the reversal of the tax
exemption availed by the petitioenr under the Sales
Tax Incentive Scheme, 1998 beyond a period of 5
years from 31.03.2006 and contrary to the Deferment
Scheme dt. 31.03.2006 ?
B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tax Board was justified in ignoring para
(5) of the Deferment Scheme dt. 31.03.2006 ?
C. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tax Board was justified in placing reliance
upon the Notification dt. 29.04.2006 and the
clarification dt. 21.08.2009 issued thereof in contrast to
the Deferment Scheme dt. 31.03.2006 ?
(3 of 4) [STR-31/2021]
D. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case the finding recorded by the Tax Board is
perverse ?"
We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by
Shri Bhandari representing the Department and Shri Sharad
Kothari, learned counsel representing the respondent assessee
and have gone through the impugned orders.
At the outset, it may be stated that two competent forums
have adjudicated the issue regarding the wrongful reversal of tax
exemption availed by the assessee under the Sales Tax Incentive
Scheme, 1998 recording concurrent findings on facts as well as on
law. It is an admitted position that the assessee had been granted
benefit of "the incentive scheme of 1998" for a period of 13 years
from 27.02.2002. During this period, the State Government
introduced a new scheme in the name and style of the deferment
scheme vide notification No.171 dated 31.03.2006. The revenue
has pleaded that the assessee wrongly continued to take benefit
of tax exemption under "the incentive scheme of 1998" till 2014-
2015 and thereby, it fell foul of the deferment scheme dated
31.03.2006. The clauses 2 and 13 of the deferment scheme are
relevant and essential for deciding the controversy and are
reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:-
"(2) The unit may opt for the deferment benefits under
this notification by submitting an application to the
Assessing Authority in Form-A appended to this
notification.
(13) The unit covered under the old schemes would be
entitled to benefit of this notification only when it opts
for deferment of tax both under the Rajasthan Value
(4 of 4) [STR-31/2021]
Added Tax Act, 2003 and the Central Sales Tax Act,
1956."
A bare perusal of these two clauses of the scheme of 2006
makes it clear that the unit had been given option to claim
deferment benefits under the notification of 2006 by submitting an
application to the assessing authority in the prescribed form. As
per clause 13, units covered under the old scheme would be
entitled to claim benefit of notification of 2006 only upon opting
for deferment of tax, both under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax
Act, 2003 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
Whether or not to opt for the deferment scheme was purely
the choice of the assessee under the deferment scheme of 2006.
Admittedly, the assessee did not opt for benefits of the deferment
scheme, it could not have been subjected to reversal of tax
exemptions rightly availed under the incentive scheme of 1998.
The findings recorded by the Appellate Authority in the order
dated 08.05.2019 as affirmed by the tax board vide judgment
dated 03.03.2021 are unimpeachable on facts as well as on law.
The revisions do not involve any substantial questions of law
and hence, the same are dismissed as being bereft of merit.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
/Devesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
