1994 (7) TMI 331 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Petition seeking quashing of order rejecting review application and mandamus for exemption from specific date. Discrepancy in starting production date affecting exemption period. Review application rejection based on new ground without hearing. Challenge to recorded production date and investment amount for exemption eligibility.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking to quash an order rejecting a review application and mandamus for exemption from a specific date. The petitioner claimed entitlement to exemption from July 3, 1985, based on the date of first sale. The Divisional Level Committee granted exemption for three years starting from December 31, 1984, which the petitioner contested, stating production started on July 3, 1985. The petitioner's review application was rejected on January 19, 1989, citing the production start date as March 9, 1985, and investment below the threshold for a five-year exemption.

The petitioner argued that the recorded production start date of March 9, 1985, was incorrect, as production required 35 h.p. electricity sanctioned on July 2, 1985. The reviewing authority's finding on March 9, 1985, was deemed new and not previously addressed, violating procedural fairness. The petitioner contended that some subassembly work started on March 9, 1985, but final production commenced on July 2, 1985. The respondents defended the March 9, 1985, date, asserting production initiation regardless of electricity supply.

The Court found the reviewing authority's new finding on the production start date unjustified and ordered a fresh decision after affording the petitioner a hearing. The impugned order was quashed, directing a reconsideration of the production start date within three months. Assessment proceedings were stayed pending the fresh decision. The Court disposed of the petition accordingly, emphasizing procedural fairness and proper consideration of relevant facts.

This judgment highlights the importance of procedural fairness in administrative decisions, ensuring parties are heard on new findings and discrepancies are adequately addressed. The Court's intervention aimed to rectify errors in determining exemption eligibility based on the correct production start date, emphasizing the need for a thorough review process.