1989 (8) TMI 326 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allegation of mala fides against respondent No. 3.
2. Eligibility for pioneer unit benefits under the Government resolution dated 27th August, 1980.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Contention No. 1: Allegation of Mala Fides

The petitioners alleged that the denial of benefits under the Government resolution was actuated by the mala fides of respondent No. 3. However, the learned single judge found no substantial data to support this allegation. The judge noted that during arguments, the case of mala fides against respondent No. 3 was not pressed by the petitioners' advocate. Affidavits from the then Chief Secretary Mr. Sivagnanam and respondent No. 3, ex-Chief Minister Mr. Madhavsinh Solanki, clearly denied the allegations. The court concurred with the learned single judge's reasoning and findings, concluding that no case of mala fides was made out by the petitioners. Therefore, this contention was rejected.

Contention No. 2: Eligibility for Pioneer Unit Benefits

The petitioners contended that their new industrial alcohol project should be recognized as a pioneer unit under the Government resolution dated 27th August, 1980, and thus be eligible for special incentives. The learned single judge rejected this claim, reasoning that the petitioners were not new to the area as they had previously operated a khandsari unit there. The judge concluded that the petitioners' new project did not qualify as a pioneer unit because it was not going to a completely new location in a backward area.

However, the appellate court found this reasoning flawed. The court emphasized that the resolution's para 7 conditions must be satisfied, focusing on whether a large-scale industrial unit was being established in a completely new location in a backward area. The court noted that the petitioners' khandsari unit had closed in 1978 and was a small-scale unit, whereas the new industrial alcohol project was a large-scale unit being established at village Nani Paniali for the first time. The court clarified that the term "pioneer unit" refers to the unit itself and not the entrepreneur. Since the new project met all conditions of the resolution, including investment in fixed assets and employment criteria, the court concluded that the petitioners were entitled to the benefits under para 7 of the resolution.

Conclusion:

The appellate court held that the petitioners satisfied all conditions for being granted pioneer unit benefits under the Government resolution dated 27th August, 1980. The court directed the respondents to register the petitioners' industrial alcohol project as a pioneer unit and provide all associated benefits. The appeal was allowed, and the attachment notice under section 200 of the Land Revenue Code was rendered ineffective. The respondents were instructed to reconsider the matter in light of the judgment and proceed accordingly.