Jct Limited

S.B.SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.296/2007 (M/s JCT Ltd. vs. Commercial Taxes Officer, Sriganganagar) S.B.SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO. 297/2007 (M/s JCT Ltd. vs. Commercial Taxes Officer, Sriganganagar) DATE OF ORDER : 14/11/2008 HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Sanjeev Johari, for the petitioners. Mr.Vineet Mathur with Mr.Rishabh Sancheti, for the Revenue. 1.

Heard learned counsels.

2. These revision petitions of the assessee are directed against the order of the Tax Board dated 9/8/2007, whereby, Tax Board upheld the order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated 28/6/2006 holding that the general notification no. F.4(12)FDGr.IV/89-50 dated 13/9/1989 published on 16/9/1989 S.O.No.97 for partial exemption would not apply to the petitioner assessee in the face of subsequent Notification No.F4(30)FD/tax Div/2002-147 dated 22/3/2002 applicable to cotton being special Notification and, therefore, since the excess tax, if any, paid on the purchase of cotton over 1 ½% was not required to be refunded vide condition no.4 of the said Notification dated 22/3/2002, therefore, assessee could not claim any refund of excess tax paid over one and a half percent on purchase of cotton by him during the period after 22/3/2002. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assessee submitted that the previous general Notification dated 13/9/1989 was not specifically superseded by the subsequent Notification dated 22/3/2002 and, therefore, the said Notification dated 13/9/89 could be applied to the case of petitioner assessee for the period after 22/3/2002 also and since there was no condition negating the refund of excess paid by the petitioner assessee, the Tax Board has erred in rejecting the appeal of petitioner assessee. 4.

These submissions are opposed by learned counsel for the respondent Revenue.

5. Having heard learned counsels, this Court finds no force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is well settled that special law will prevail over the general law. Doubtless it is that the Notification dated 22/3/2002 dealing with the specific commodity namely Cotton purchased for manufacturing cotton yarn in the State is applicable to the petitioner assessee. Since the petitioner assessee admittedly purchased cotton for manufacturing cotton yarn after the issuance of said Notification dated 22/3/2002, there is no question of applying general Notification dated 13/9/1989 to the case of petitioner assessee after 22.3.2002. It is further as clear as day light that Notification dated 22/3/2002 contains a specific stipulation in the form of condition no.4 that no refund of tax paid on raw material in excess of 1 ½% shall be made under this notification. In the face of this condition, there was no question of allowing any refund to the petitioner assessee under the said notification. The authorities below cannot said to have erred in rejecting the appeal of petitioner assessee. As a matter of fact, no question of law arises in the present cases. However, if anyone can be said

to be arising, the same is bound to be answered against the petitioner assessee in view of clear terms of Notification dated 22/3/2002, applicable to it. 5. In view of above, the revision petitions are found to be devoid of merit and the same are accordingly dismissed. No costs. (DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J. item nos.32,33 baweja/