Skip to content


Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Good Luck Rubber and Allied Industries - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSales Tax Revision No. 12 of 1976
Judge
Reported in[1983]53STC388(All)
AppellantCommissioner, Sales Tax
RespondentGood Luck Rubber and Allied Industries
Advocates:The Chief Standing Counsel
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- - good luck rubber and allied industries and the date of starting production is august, 1968. this was followed by notification no. good luck rubber and allied industries, lucknow, and the date on which the unit completes three years of production is mentioned in column 4 as 20th august, 1971. 4. there were originally four partners in the assessee-firm, namely, sarvasri harnam singh, har saran singh, sadho ram and jairam das. good luck rubber and allied industries, lucknow. good luck rubber and allied industries (sic), the exemption was available to it after the new partnership came into existence. good luck rubber and allied industries as it was a new juristic assessee......of the goods mentioned in column 3 of the schedule thereto, manufactured by the industrial units mentioned against each in column ii of the schedule thereto, manufactured by the industrial units mentioned against each in column 2 thereof as reproduced in columns 2 and 3 respectively in the schedule to this notification shall cease to be operative on the date on which the unit completes three years of production as noted against each in column 4 of the schedule hereto.3. at item no. 1 is mentioned messrs. good luck rubber and allied industries, lucknow, and the date on which the unit completes three years of production is mentioned in column 4 as 20th august, 1971.4. there were originally four partners in the assessee-firm, namely, sarvasri harnam singh, har saran singh, sadho ram.....
Judgment:

B.N. Sapru, J.

1. This is a revision by the Commissioner and pertains to the assessment year 1970-71.

2. The assessee carried on business in paddle of tricycle, brake, timber, etc. The State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 4-A of the Sales Tax Act issued Notification No. ST-10225/X dated 9th January, 1970, wherein it was stated : 'Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers under Section 4-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, (U.P. Act No. XV of 1948), the Governor is pleased to declare that the turnpver in respect of the said goods manufactured by the said industrial units shall be exempt from payment of sales tax for a period of three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the official Gazette.' At Sl. No. 1 is mentioned M/s. Good Luck Rubber and Allied Industries and the date of starting production is August, 1968. This was followed by Notification No. ST-2669/X-902(8)-70 dated 16th April, 1970, which notification runs thus :

In exercise of the powers under Section 4-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (U.P. Act No. XV of 1948), read with Section 21 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1904), and in partial modification of Government Notification No. ST-II-10225/X dated January 9, 1970 (S. No. 411), the Governor is pleased to order that the exemption granted under the aforesaid notification in respect of the turnover of the goods mentioned in column 3 of the schedule thereto, manufactured by the industrial units mentioned against each in column II of the schedule thereto, manufactured by the industrial units mentioned against each in column 2 thereof as reproduced in columns 2 and 3 respectively in the schedule to this notification shall cease to be operative on the date on which the unit completes three years of production as noted against each in column 4 of the schedule hereto.

3. At item No. 1 is mentioned Messrs. Good Luck Rubber and Allied Industries, Lucknow, and the date on which the unit completes three years of production is mentioned in column 4 as 20th August, 1971.

4. There were originally four partners in the assessee-firm, namely, Sarvasri Harnam Singh, Har Saran Singh, Sadho Ram and Jairam Das. With effect from 1st April, 1970, M/s. Harnam Singh and Har Saran Singh withdrew from the partnership firm and M/s. Kismat Rai, s/o Sadho Ram, old partner, and Ram Prakash, s/o Jairam Das, another old partner, joined the partnership firm. The partnership firm continued in the old name of M/s. Good Luck Rubber and Allied Industries, Lucknow.

5. The question in this case is as to whether in view of the fact that the partnership had been reconstituted during the period of three years when the exemption to M/s. Good Luck Rubber and Allied Industries (sic), the exemption was available to it after the new partnership came into existence.

6. The Judge (Revisions) was of the view that the exemption granted under Section 4-A continued and was available to the reconstituted assessee.

7. Aggrieved by the order of the Judge (Revisions), the Commissioner, Sales Tax, has filed this revision.

8. Learned standing counsel appearing in support of this revision has argued that the exemption ceased to be available to M/s. Good Luck Rubber and Allied Industries as it was a new juristic assessee. Section 4-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act has been introduced with the aim of increasing the development of industrially backward districts. It is clear that the intention of the legislature in introducing Section 4-A was to promote industrial development in the State, and therefore, the State Government gave a concession by making the product of new industrial units which may be free from sales tax provided they were notified under Section 4-A. The stress was on the creation of new industrial units and not on granting exemption to new assessees. The exemption is granted to the manufacturer by Section 4-A(1). The dealer or the assessee is not mentioned in Section 4-A(1). An interpretation, which would promote the legislative intent, viz., the development of industrial unit, has to be adopted. The industrial unit was continued by the reconstituted firm and was entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section 4-A.

9. This Court in the case of Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. v. U.P. Leather Board (see infra) 1980 UPTC 287 has held that the exemption granted to an industrial unit run by a particular partnership firm continued to be available to that unit even though the partnership firm was reconstituted. In this view of the matter, the Judge (Revisions) was right in the view he took.

10. The revision is accordingly dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //