SHREE CEMENT LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT

Facts

The petitioner, Shree Cement Limited, filed Sales Tax Revision Petitions (STRs) against the dismissal of their appeals by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer. The Tax Board had dismissed the appeals on May 13, 2022, and subsequently dismissed clarification applications on March 28, 2024. Earlier, the petitioner's appeals before the Appellate Authority, Commercial Tax Department, Ajmer, were also dismissed on August 25, 2015, August 25, 2015, and June 30, 2015. The core dispute concerns exemptions and claims for capital investment subsidy, interest, and wage/employment subsidy under the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Policy-2003 (RIPS-2003). The petitioner argued that the authorities erred by not following RIPS-2003, despite a committee's recommendation in their favor.

Held

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in these revision petitions. The Court noted that the dispute pertains to exemptions and claims under RIPS-2003, which were considered by the lower authorities. The petitioner's argument regarding the Uma Polymers judgment was addressed, with the Court observing that the judgment still holds good and its operation has not been stayed. Therefore, the request to adjourn sine die was rejected. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's definition of a substantial question of law and concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate perversity or an issue requiring adjudication. The judgment in M/s Uma Polymers (supra) on an identical issue was considered decisive. Consequently, the revision petitions were dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Rajasthan Tax Board and the Appellate Authority committed a serious error by not following the provisions of the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Policy-2003 (RIPS-2003) in denying exemptions and subsidies to the petitioner? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the present revision petitions raise a substantial question of law requiring consideration by the High Court? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: - The Tax Board and Appellate Authority erred by rejecting the petitioner's case after considering the judgment in Uma Polymers Ltd. Vs. State and Others, despite factual differences. - The petitioner is entitled to exemptions under RIPS-2003, but the Tax Assessing Officer declined them. - The matter should be adjourned sine die until the decision in the writ appeal concerning the Uma Polymers judgment by the Division Bench, or a substantial question of law should be framed. - The authorities failed to grant a proper opportunity of hearing. Revenue's Contentions: - Not recorded in the judgment.