IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2012

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR

STA Nos. 17 of 2010 & 122-123 of 2012

C/w

STA Nos. 18 of 2010 & 124 of 2012 and

STRP Nos.134 & 137-138 of 2008

IN STA NOS. 17/2010 &

122-123/2012:

BETWEEN:

M/S ADESHWAR GRANITES PVT. LTD.,NO.14-B, ATTIBELE INDUSTRIAL AREA,HOSUR ROAD, ANEKAL TALUKBANGALORE DISTRICT[BY ARVIND JAIN, 31 YEARS,DIRECTOR] … APPELLANT

[BY SRI T N KESHAVAMURTHY, ADV.]

AND:

1. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONEROF COMMERCIAL TAXES,ZONE-II, VANIJYA THERIGEKARYALAYA, GANDHINAGAR,BANGALORE – 560 009

®

2

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKAREP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARYTO GOVERNMENT,FINANCE DEPARTMENTVIDHANA SOUDHA,BANGALORE – 560 001 … RESPONDENTS

[BY SMT S SUJATHA, AGA]

THESE APPEALS FILED UNDER SECTION 24(1) OF THEKARNATAKA SALES TAX ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:21.1.2010 PASSED IN NO. SMR/KST/A & R-3/CR-75/09-10 ON THEFILE OF THE ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ZONE-II, BANGALORE, REVISING THE APPEAL ORDERS AND RESTORINGTHE ORDERS OF RE-ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE ASSESSINGAUTHORITY AND ETC.,

IN STA NOS. 18/2010 & 124/2012:

BETWEEN:

M/S ANUSHA STONES PVT. LTD.,NO.9-A, ATTIBELE INDUSTRIAL AREA,HOSUR ROAD, ANEKAL TALUKBANGALORE DISTRICT(BY JITENDRA KOTHARI,42 YEARS, DIRECTOR) … APPELLANT

[BY SRI T N KESHAVAMURTHY, ADV.]AND:

1. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONEROF COMMERCIAL TAXES,ZONE-II, VANIJYA THERIGEKARYALAYA, GANDHINAGAR,BANGALORE – 560 009

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKAREP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARYTO GOVERNMENT,FINANCE DEPARTMENTVIDHANA SOUDHA,BANGALORE – 560 001 … RESPONDENTS

[BY SMT S SUJATHA, AGA]

3

THESE APPEALS FILED UNDER SECTION 24(1) OF THEKARNATAKA SALES TAX ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:21.1.2010 PASSED IN NO. SMR/KST/JCCT(ADMN.) & RECOVERY/CR-74/09-10 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OFCOMMERCIAL TAXES, ZONE-II, BANGALORE, REVISING THE APPEALORDER, RESTORING THE ORDER OF RE-ASSESSMENT PASSED BYTHE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND ETC.,

IN STRP NOS. 134 & 137-138/2008:

BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKAREP. BY THE SECRETARYFINANCE DEPARTMENTVIDHANA SOUDHABANGALORE – 560 001 … PETITIONER

[BY SMT S SUJATHA, AGA]

AND:

M/S ANANTHA SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD.,NO.82, KELAGOTEKIADB INDUSTRIAL AREACHITRADURGA – 577 502 … RESPONDENT

[BY SRI INDRAKUMAR, SR. COUNSEL A/WSRI E I SANMATHI, ADV.]

THESE PETITIONS FILED UNDER SECTION 23 (1) OF THE KSTACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED: 29.4.2008PASSED IN STA NOS. 14, 15 & 16 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF THEKARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THEAPPEALS AND ETC.,

THESE APPEALS C/W STRPs COMING ON FOR HEARING, THISDAY, D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR. J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING

4

JUDGMENT

RE: STA Nos.17/2010 & 122-123/2012:

These appeals under section 24[1] of the Karnataka

Sales Tax Act, 1957 [for short ‘KST Act’] is by the assessee –

dealer and directed against the order passed by the

Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes exercising his

suo motu revisional powers under section 22-A of the KST

Act.

2. The assessment period involved in these appeals are

2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. Only one number having

been assigned, we direct the assessee to pay deficit court fee

and registry upon payment of deficit of court fee to assign

the number.

3. The appeals are on the premise that the Additional

Commissioner of Commercial Taxes while exercising suo

motu revisional powers has committed an error and illegality

5

in reversing the order passed by the Appellate Commissioner

and in restoring the assessment order.

4. The question that arose was as to whether the

appellant – dealer who without any dispute had the benefit

of exemption in respect of its sales turnover including inter

state sales turnover in terms of certain concessions given to

new industrial establishments as per the Industrial Policy

1996 to 2001, could claim the benefit of the effectuating

notification of this policy as per Government Order dated

15.11.1996 in respect of its inter states sales and in

situations wherein exemption was claimed without the

backup of production of ‘C’ form and ‘D’ form as the case

may be.

5. The controversy arose in the background of the

amendments to the provisions of sub-section [5] of section 8

of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [for short ‘CST Act’] in

terms of the amending Act No.20/2002 given effect to from

11.5.2002.

6

6. It is the case of the revenue that to effectuate the

amendments and changes brought about, the State

Government had issued a follow up notification dated

31.5.2002 and as a result of the amendment and this

notification, a dealer who avails the benefit of exemption in

terms of the Government notification dated 15.11.1996 can

avail the same only by producing ‘C’ form or ‘D’ form as the

case may be and not otherwise.

7. While there is no dispute that the Assessing Officer

had not denied the benefit available to a dealer who effects

inter state sales and produces forms ‘C’ & ‘D’ and on the

other and had brought to tax inter state sales turnover at

the rate as is provided under section 8[2] of CST Act in

respect of inter state turnover of the assessee though

claimed to have been sales in favour of registered dealers or

the Government but had failed to file the declaration in Form

‘C’ or Form ‘D’, the further question is only as to whether the

assessee should have been denied the benefit of exemption

7

also, in respect of inter state sales effected in favour of

dealers other than registered dealers and the Government,

though was so entitled to claim the exemption on the basis

of the 15.11.1996 notification which had been issued by the

State Government.

8. The Assessing Officer having taken the view that in the

light of the amendment to sub-section [5] of section 8 of CST

Act and the notification dated 31.05.2002, even though the

dealer might have been subjected to tax on such inter state

turnover at the higher rate as is indicated in section 8[2] of

the CST Act, i.e., at 20% in the present case, nevertheless,

such tax liability cannot be claimed for reduction as against

80% of the fixed assets value which is the amount eligible for

concession/exemption under the notification.

9. It is this aspect which became the bone of contention

between the dealer and the revenue and in the appeal before

the Joint Commissioner of Appeals, the assessee met with

8

success with the Joint Commissioner opining that the dealer

can avail of the benefit.

10. The Commissioner having set aside this order by

exercising his revisional jurisdiction and having restored the

order passed by the assessing authority, the assessee is

before us in these appeals.

11. We have heard Sri. T N Keshavamurthy, learned

counsel for the appellant and Smt. S. Sujatha, learned

Additional Government Advocate appearing for the

respondent – State who have made submissions in some

detail.

12. The main contention of Sri. T N Keshavamurthy,

learned counsel for the appellant is that the kind of benefit

given to an entrepreneur who has set up a new industrial

unit in terms of the notification of the year 1996 is in the

nature of rebate or concession given; that it is not actually in

the nature of exemption, the tax liability is determined and

9

in fact in the present case due to non production of ‘C’ & ‘D’

forms, the dealer has already been assessed to tax at the

regular rates without giving the concessional rates as is

available under section 8[1] of CST Act, but nevertheless

even the rebate/concession is being denied which definitely

is not the intention or object of the amendment or the

notification; that the assessee – dealer is entitled to claim set

off as against the eligible amount and it matters little as to

whether the rate of tax is as indicated in section 8[1] or

section 8[2] of CST Act and also as to whether the assessee

has produced ‘C’ & ‘D’ forms or not for claiming such

concession.

13. In support of such submission, Mr. T N

Keshavamurthy, learned counsel for the appellant has

placed reliance on the Judgment of the division Bench of

Allahabad High Court in the case of ‘YAMAHA MOTORS

ESCORTS LIMITED v. STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS’ reported

in [2011] 38 VST 116 [All], by referring to paragraphs 11 to

10

16 of this Judgment, submission is that the Allahabad High

Court had occasion to examine an analogous notification

issued by the U.P. Government in the context of the very

provisions of section 8[5] of CST Act as amended; that it has

been held that the dealer is entitled for concession or benefit

of the nature as had been, extended earlier notwithstanding

the notification and the amendment to section 8[5] of CST

Act, and submits that this view of Allahabad High Court has

to be accepted and the appeals allowed on such premise.

14. It is also brought to our notice that the Allahabad High

Court was seized of the matter in the background of the

matter having gone before the Supreme Court earlier and on

this limited aspect, the matter having been remitted to the

High Court. It is submitted that the restricting provisions in

terms of amendment brought about in section 8[5] of CST

Act are not attracted to the present transactions which are

in the nature of sales effected in favour of unregistered

dealer or dealers who have not issued ‘C’ forms and sales in

11

favour of the Government, but not covered by issue of ‘D’

forms etc.

15. On the other hand, countering such submission, Smt.

S. Sujatha, learned Additional Government Advocate has

very vehemently submitted that there is virtually no scope

for contending so on behalf of the assessee; that the matter

is virtually concluded by the division Bench Judgment of

this court rendered in the case of ‘M/s. VOLVO INDIA PVT.

LTD., v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS’ rendered on

2.4.2009 in W.A. No.2417/2007 affirming the view taken

by the single Bench of this court and upholding the validity

of the notification dated 31.5.2002.

16. Strong reliance is placed on this Judgment to submit

that when once validity of this notification has been upheld

by this court and what all the Commissioner has done is

only to effectuate the notification in the manner as

understood; that there is no scope for interference in these

12

appeals and in the wake of this pronouncement, this court

should necessarily dismiss the appeals.

17. It is also submitted that the view taken by the division

Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of ‘M/S.

VENKATESH SURGICAL COTTON v. THE STATE OF

MADHYA PRADESH’ rendered on 7.2.2012 in WP

No.11427/2008 and connected matters, supports the

submissions and the notification dated 31.5.2002 virtually

ensures that an assessee cannot claim any exemption

without the production of ‘C’ form or ‘D’ form.

18. It is also submitted that the argument of rebate or

concession is not available; that it is nothing but an

exemption given referable to section 8[5] of CST Act; that

while there can be a dichotomy of nature of exemption

granted under section 8-A of KST Act as the very notification

grants exemption in respect of both sales tax turnover as

well as central sales tax turnover, in the sales tax enactment

there is general exemption granted under section 8-A and

13

specific exemption granted under section 19-C of KST Act,

but such dichotomy or discretion is not available in the CST

Act and section 8[5] of CST Act being the only statutory

provision available for granting exemption and with section

8[5] of CST Act now being amended and the requirement of

section 8[4] of CST Act being made mandatory and in the

instant case there being no dispute that the assessee had

not produced forms ‘C’ & ‘D’ in respect of turnover for which

concession or exemption had been denied, there is no way of

the assessee claiming exemption and therefore submits

appeals have to be dismissed.

19. We have been taken through the legislative history of

the amendment and it is submitted that amendment was

necessitated and Parliament stepped in to bring about such

amendment to the enabling exemption provision in view of

the rampant malpractice that prevailed earlier by

unscrupulous dealers claiming transactions which were not

necessarily in favour of Government and registered dealers,

14

also as inter state sales turnover covered by section 8[1] of

CST Act and therefore the Parliament having consciously

brought about the legislative change by amending the

requirement of production of forms ‘C’ & ‘D’ for claiming

exemption, the dealer cannot avail such exemption without

production of ‘C’ & ‘D’ forms.

20. It is also submitted that the notification is only to

effectuate the amendment to section 8[5] of the CST Act and

validity of this notification also having been upheld, the

assessee and dealers are bound to fall in line with this

requirement failing which they lose the benefit of exemption.

21. We have perused the orders under appeal, looked into

the record and bestowed attention to the submissions made

at the Bar.

22. There is no doubt that the question arises in the

context of claim for exemption or if it is to be described in

pedestrian manner, the mode of availing the concession!

15

23. An exemption can be claimed only in a manner

provided for by the statute and not in any other manner and

definitely not by way of an analogy or logical deduction.

There is no doubt or dispute that the appellant – assessee is

otherwise is entitled for the benefit of the notification of the

year 1996 being a new industry. The only question is

whether in terms of the amendments to section 8[5] of CST

Act, a dealer like the appellant can claim any exemption

under the earlier notification of the year 1996 in the wake of

amendment to section 8[5] of CST Act and in the wake of

follow up notification dated 31.5.2012.

24. For such purposes, we are of the view that a

comprehensive reading of section 8 of CST Act is very

necessary. Section 8 of CST Act reads as under:

8. Rates of tax on sales in the course ofinter-State trade or commerce :-

(1) Every dealer, who in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, sells to aregistered dealer goods of the descriptionreferred to in sub-section (3); shall be liable

16

to pay tax under this Act, which shall be twoper cent of his turnover or at the rateapplicable to the sale or purchase of such

goods inside the appropriate State under thesales tax law of that State, whichever islower:

Provided that the Central Government may,by notification in the Official Gazette, reduce

the rate of tax under this sub-section.

(2) The tax payable by any dealer on histurnover in so far as the turnover or any partthereof relates to the sale of goods in thecourse of inter-State trade or commerce not

falling within sub-section (1), shall be at therate applicable to the sale or purchase ofsuch goods inside the appropriate Stateunder the sale tax law of that State.

Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-section,

a dealer shall be deemed to be a dealer liable topay tax under the sales tax law of the appropriateState, notwithstanding that he, in fact, may not beso liable under that law.

(3) The goods referred to in sub-section (1) -

(a) xxx(b) are goods of the class or classes

specified in the certificate ofregistration of the registered dealerpurchasing the goods as being

intended for re-sale by him or subjectto any rules made by the CentralGovernment in this behalf, for use byhim in the manufacture or processing

17

of goods for sale or in thetelecommunications network or inmining or in the generation or

distribution of electricity or any otherform of power ;

(c) are containers or other materialsspecified in the certificate ofregistration of the registered dealer

purchasing the goods, beingcontainers or materials intended forbeing used for the packing of goods forsale;

(d) are containers or other materials used

for the packing of any goods or classesof goods specified in the certificate ofregistration referred to in clause (b) orfor the packing of any containers orother materials specified in thecertificate of registration referred to in

clause (c).

(4) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall notapply to any sale in the course of inter-Statetrade or commerce unless the dealer sellingthe goods furnishes to the prescribed

authority in the prescribed manner adeclaration duly filled and signed by theregistered dealer to whom the goods aresold containing the prescribed particulars ina prescribed form obtained from theprescribed authority:

Provided that the declaration is furnishedwithin the prescribed time or within such

18

further time as that authority may, forsufficient cause, permit.

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in thissection, the State Government may on thefulfillment of the requirements laid down insub-section (4) by the dealer if it is satisfiedthat it is necessary so to do in the publicinterest, by notification in the Official

Gazette, and subject to such conditions asmay be specified therein, direct,-

(a) that no tax under this Act shall bepayable by any dealer having hisplace of business in the State in

respect of the sales by him, in thecourse of inter-State trade orcommerce, to a registered dealer fromany such place of business of anysuch goods or classes of goods as maybe specified in the notification, or that

the tax on such sales shall becalculated at such lower rates thanthose specified in sub-section (1) asmay be mentioned in the notification;

(b) that in respect of all sales of goods or

sales of such classes of goods as maybe specified in the notification, whichare made, in the course of inter-Statetrade or commerce, to a registereddealer by any dealer having his placeof business in the State or by any

class of such dealers as may bespecified in the notification to anyperson or to such class of persons asmay be specified in the notification, no

19

tax under this Act shall be payable orthe tax on such sales shall becalculated at such lower rates than

those specified in sub-section (1) asmay be mentioned in the notification.

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in thissection, no tax under this Act shall bepayable by any dealer in respect of sale of

any goods made by such dealer, in thecourse of inter-State trade or commerce to aregistered dealer for the purpose of settingup, operation, maintenance, manufacture,trading, production, processing, assembling,repairing, reconditioning, re-engineering,

packaging or for use as packing material orpacking accessories in a unit located in anyspecial economic zone or for development,operation and maintenance of specialeconomic zone by the developer of thespecial economic zone, if such registered

dealer has been authorised to establishsuch unit or to develop, operate andmaintain such special economic zone by theauthority specified by the CentralGovernment in this behalf.

(7) The goods referred to in sub-section (6) shallbe the goods of such class or classes ofgoods as specified in the certificate ofregistration of the registered dealer referredto in that sub-section.

(8) The provisions of sub-sections (6) and (7)shall not apply to any sale of goods made inthe course of inter-State trade or commerceunless the dealer selling such goods

20

furnishes to the prescribed authorityreferred to in sub-section (4) a declaration inthe prescribed manner on the prescribed

form obtained from the authority specifiedby the Central Government under sub-section (6) in sub-section (5) duly filled inand signed by the registered dealer to whomsuch goods are sold.

Explanation - For the purposes of sub-section (6),the expression “special economic zone” has themeaning assigned to it in clause (iii) toExplanation 2 to the proviso to section 3 of theCentral Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944).”

25. We notice from the scheme of this section that section

not only is charging section, but also provides the rate of tax

vis-à-vis in respect of which sales has been effected by a

dealer to purchaser outside the State.

26. Sub-section [1] of section 8 of CST Act takes care of

inter state sales effected by registered dealer in favour of

registered dealers or Governments. The rate of tax one can

notice is on a lower side and not more than 4% during the

relevant time and now it is 2%.

21

27. Sub-section [2] of section 8 of CST Act covers other

situations of inter state sale of goods i.e., sales not in favour

of registered dealers and Governments. Here again, the case

being declared goods or otherwise have a bearing on the rate

of tax.

28. Sub-section [4] of section 8 of CST Act controls the

operation of sub-section [1] of section 8 of CST Act by

indicating that the fact of inter state sales being in favour of

either registered dealer or Government, should be evidenced

by the purchaser providing a statutory form known as ‘C’

form in the case of registered dealer and ‘D’ form if the sale

is in favour of the Government.

29. Sub-section [5] of section 8 of CST Act is the provision

enabling the State Government to issue notifications

granting exemptions vis-à-vis either on class of dealers as is

provided in clause [a] or vis-à-vis classes of goods as enabled

under clause [b] of this section.

22

30. The words ‘on the fulfillment of the requirements laid

down in sub-section [4] by the dealer’ have been inserted by

the amending Act of the year 2002. It is because of such

amendment, the question has arisen as to what is the

meaning of this provision and what is the effect of sale in the

wake of amendment and in what manner it affects the claim

for exemption though either the class of goods or class of

dealers have been notified for grant of exemption.

31. Submission of Smt. S. Sujatha, learned Additional

Government Advocate is that the amendment having been to

the main part of section 8[5] of CST Act and being in

common to both clauses [a] and [b], amendment has to

necessarily be read as one governing situations occurring

under both clause [a] and [b] and therefore there is no

escape from the requirement of production of ‘C’ & ‘D’ forms

for claiming exemption.

32. We have examined this submission in some detail. We

find that the requirement of sub-section [4] of section 8 of

23

CST Act in itself is for the purpose of claiming the benefit of

the lower rate of tax as indicated in sub-section [1] of section

8 of CST Act. It is therefore that on a proper and

harmonious reading of section 8[5] of CST Act after the

amendment and even after inserting of the reference to the

requirement of section 8[4] of CST Act by a dealer

requirement in sub-section [4] of CST Act is one which is

confined and restricted to a situation covered by the

provisions of sub-section[1] of section 8 of CST Act and it

cannot in any way affect or control the exemptions granted

vis-à-vis tax liability and the rate of tax as indicated in

section 8[2] of CST Act i.e., the amendment cannot have any

bearing or effect in respect of exemptions granted to inter

state sales turnover either the class of dealers with reference

to the goods or otherwise who are not registered dealers and

not Government. In other words, restriction brought about

by the amendment cannot regulate or effect an exemption if

has been granted or is to be given in respect of inter state

24

sales turnover effected in favour of non registered dealers

and other Governments.

33. We are of the view that this is the only proper way of

understanding of the amendment as we find that sub-

section [5] of section 8 of CST Act is an enabling provision to

grant exemptions in situations where it is a case of levy of

tax under the CST Act.

34. We are not inclined to accept the contentions urged on

behalf of the State to read the changes brought about by the

amending Act of 2002 as one which governs both clauses [a]

and [b] for the reason that insofar as clause [a] is concerned,

we notice that the sales are all in favour of registered dealer

and the Government in clause[b] pertains to inter state sales

in favour of other persons other than registered dealers and

Governments are also covered. It is therefore we have to

attribute a meaning to the legislature having made a

conscious distinction between the clauses [a] and [b] of

section 8[5] of CST Act from which we can understand is

25

that restriction imposed will have a bearing and proper

meaning if it is only with reference to inter state sales

effected in favour of registered dealers and the Governments.

35. We have perused the Judgment of Allahabad High

Court and with respect while we are in agreement with the

conclusion arrived at, we have preferred to give our own

reasoning as indicated above and we would not like to

express any opinion with regard to the line of reasoning

indicated in the Judgment by the Allahabad High Court.

36. We also hold that while the validity of the notification

by this court and therefore the notification operating in the

manner in which it is so provided does not in any way affect

or make difference to the manner in which the very

provisions of section 8[5] operates and is to be interpreted

and understood after the amendment.

37. As we are expressing the view as above, on a reading of

the plenary legislation and the notification issued being only

26

to effectuate that, we do not find any conflict in the view

expressed by the division Bench earlier upholding the

notification and the present view taken by us in this

Judgment. We are of the view that, this is the only possible

way of giving full effect to the exemption provision under

section 8[5] of CST Act and at the same time effectuating the

restrictions imposed therein insofar as inter state sales

turnover effected in favour of registered dealers and the

Governments, are concerned, while the benefit of exemption

is claimed.

38. The appeals are allowed. The order of the revisional

authority is set aside in the wake of the understanding of the

provisions of section 8[5] of CST Act after amendment and

order of the appellate authority is restored.

39. We make it clear that in the context of dispute raised

in these appeals being confined to exemption claimed in

respect of inter state sales turnover which has been effected

in respect of turnover not supported by production of ‘C’ or

27

‘D’ forms, this decision does not in any way seek to avoid

requirement of production of ‘C’ or ‘D’ forms in respect of

sales effected in favour of registered Dealers and

Governments and non production resulting in denial of the

exemption in terms of the amended provisions.

40. We also make it clear that we have not examined the

justification or otherwise of the rate at which the turnover

has been subjected to tax as that is not the issue before this

court in these appeals and the rate as determined by the

Assessing Officer is retained.

RE: STA Nos.18/2010 & 124/2012:

41. These appeals under section 24[1] of the KST Act is by

the assessee – dealer and directed against the order passed

by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

exercising his suo motu revisional powers under section 22-A

of the KST Act.

42. The assessment period involved in these appeals are

2003-04 and 2004-05. Only one number having been

28

assigned, we direct the assessee to pay deficit court fee and

registry upon payment of deficit of court fee to assign the

number.

43. These appeals are allowed in terms of the Judgment

rendered above in STA No.17/2010.

RE: STRP Nos.134 & 137-138 of 2008:

44. These revision petitions by the State Government

under section 20[3]of KST Act are directed against the order

of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and raising the question

as to the entitlement or otherwise of the benefit of exemption

under the notification of the year 1996 as a dealer who has

set up a new industry in the notified areas and who has

effected inter state sales and has claimed benefit/exemption,

but denied because of non declaration in ‘C’ forms by

registered dealer.

45. Identical questions having been examined in the above

appeals and the questions having already been answered in

the above appeals, we opine that the revision petitions are to

29

be dismissed and the questions raised in these appeals are

answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee,

as the dealer is otherwise entitled to claim the benefit of the

notification so long as the inter state sales is not in favour of

registered dealers and therefore the requirement of

production of declaration form-‘C’ being not attracted and

therefore the benefit being not denied to a dealer claiming

the benefit of exemption notification of the year 1996 and so

long as the dealer has paid taxes at the rate as indicated in

section 8[2] of the CST Act.

46. Therefore, the revision petitions filed by the State are

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

AN/-