AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Singhal, J.-The order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated 6-5-1993 in respect of the assessment year 1987-88 have been challenged in this revision. Following three questions have been raised in this petition:
"Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in dismissing the appeal only on the ground of non-production of the new unit certificate to avail sales tax exemption when the prescribed authority refused to give the same only on the ground that the unit of the petitioner is sold long back;
Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in denying sufficient time and opportunity to the petitioner to obtain the required new unit certificate as required under the Government Notification even though a new unit certificate was issued without recording the requirement of the Government Notification to avail the sales tax exemption;
Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Tribunal is valid and sustainable in law".
There was a letter dated 8-3-1991 written by the petitioner to the Assistant Director of Industries Department for issue of the sales tax exemption certificate vide endorsement dated 28-10-1991. The endorsement was issued to the petitioner, that since the unit has already been sold long back FAVC cannot be issued or fixed asset value certificate cannot be issued. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the benefit with regard to exemption from electricity has to be given and there is no time limit prescribed for applying for fixed asset value certificate. The Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the appeal on that ground.
Arguments of learned Counsel appearing for the parties heard. The petitioner was denied exemption because the Industries Department refused to issue fixed assets valuation certificate. It has not been pointed out to us that there was any time limit prescribed for moving the application for issue of such a certificate. Even if an application is moved after a year or so even after closure of the unit, the burden will always be on the assessee to prove that he has certain fixed assets for which the exemption under the notification could be granted, certificate can be issued by the department. In these circumstances, the Industries Department is directed to consider the application dated 8-3-1991 or even the earlier application submitted by the petitioner afresh and the petitioner would satisfy as to whether any FAVC were issued by which exemption could be given or not.
Revision petition stands disposed of with the above observations.