- (1.) THESE eight petitions by the same petitioner -assessee involving fundamentally the same issues, have been considered together; and shall be governed by this common order.
(2.) AFTER having heard at some length the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr. S. Ganesh for the petitioners and by the learned counsel Mr. Puneet Jain for the respondents, we have formed the opinion that these petitions deserve to be admitted for consideration; and so far the prayer for interim relief is concerned, the same deserves to be declined in relation to the principal amount of tax demanded for the years 2001 -02 to 2005 -06 but a limited protection in relation to the amount of interest demanded for these years deserves to be granted; and in relation to the years 2006 -07 to 2008 -09, different nature protection is required to be granted, in view of the admitted fact situation, as noticed infra. As the issues involved would, otherwise, call for final hearing, we are not making final comments on the merits of the case either way. Only a thumbnail sketch of the background aspects with stand of the respective parties on the major issues is being indicated hereinbelow.
(3.) THE petitioner No. 1 in these petitions is a Public Limited Company dealing in manufacturing and marketing of cement. By way of these petitions, the petitioners seek to question the different orders made on 07.04.2014 by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Circle Beawar carrying out reassessment qua the petitioner as a consequence of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 19.02.2014 in Civil Appeal No. 336/2003: CTO Vs. M/s. Binani Cements Ltd. & Anr. Put in a nutshell, the background aspects had been that the petitioner made a claim for sales tax exemption as a "very prestigious unit" under the Rajasthan Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1989 ('the Scheme of 1989' hereafter). The petitioner was granted 25% exemption in Rajasthan Sales Tax and 75% in Central Sales Tax on the eligible fixed capital investment with effect from 27.03.1997. Leaving aside the other details at this stage, the relevant aspects of the matter are that the petitioner took up the matter for grant of 90% benefit as "new very prestigious unit". An appeal taken before the Rajasthan Tax Board, being Appeal No. 703/99/ST/Pali was decided on 29.03.2000 where the matter was remanded for consideration to the State Level Screening Committee ('the SLSC'). The SLSC in its meeting dated 09.10.2001 ultimately ordered as under: - As per amendment made on 10.12.96, the cement units have been deleted from Annexure -B (Negative list). Hence the benefit would be available to them as per provisions 1E of Annexure -C. As per entry No. 1E of Annexure -C, the new large scale cement units except in TSPA is entitled to grant the benefit to the extent of 25% of total tax liability for a period of 7 years and the quantum of benefit would be limited to 100% of EFCI. Very prestigious cement units are not entitled for the benefit available at entry No. 5 of Annexure -C, Since in that entry No. 5, the cement units are excluded, hence as per amendment made on 10.12.96, very prestigious cement units are entitled for benefit only available at entry No. 1E of Annexure -C as par as other new cement unit. It is worthwhile to mention here that notification dated 10.12.96, units which have been started their commercial production before 10.12.96 the benefit which were available before 10.12.96 would be available to them. As per above mentioned legal position the Committee was of the view that the contention of the unit that after the deletion of the IInd provision on 10.12.96, given under clause 4(a), the unit became entitled for benefit to the extent of 90% of total tax liability under RST Act vide item No. 5 of Annexure -C, is not tenable, since by notification dated 10.12.96, the item No. 5 of Annexure -C was also amended, where cement units are excluded from new very prestigious units. The Committee considered the facts of the case mentioned in the agenda note and heard the representation of the unit. The committee after detailed discussion decided to defer the case for the next SLSC meeting and directed to provide the list of ineligible items and amount as observed in the SLSC meeting dated 8.1.98 alongwith the copy of circular dated 12.10.95.;