1996 (6) TMI 327 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the District Level Screening Committee's order dated August 30, 1991.
2. Entitlement to benefits under the Sales Tax Deferment Scheme for Industries, 1987.
3. Opportunity to opt for the Sales Tax New Deferment Scheme for Industries, 1989.
4. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
5. Maintainability of the writ petition.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the District Level Screening Committee's Order:
The petitioner challenged the order dated August 30, 1991, by the District Level Screening Committee, which rejected his application for benefits under the Deferment Scheme, 1987. The petitioner claimed that his fixed capital investment was Rs. 11,85,650, whereas the Committee considered it to be Rs. 9,58,150, thus disqualifying him from the scheme that required a minimum investment of Rs. 10,00,000.

2. Entitlement to Benefits under the Deferment Scheme, 1987:
The petitioner argued that his investment in fixed assets was Rs. 11,85,650, supported by a Chartered Accountant's certificate. The respondents contended that the actual investment was Rs. 9,58,150, excluding the inflated value of land. The court noted the investment in the factory building and plant and machinery was undisputed at Rs. 9,58,150. The discrepancy arose from the land valuation, which the petitioner claimed was Rs. 2,27,500 based on RIICO's rate, while the actual cost was Rs. 24,286 as per the lease deed. The court concluded that the petitioner did not invest Rs. 2,27,500 in the land and thus did not meet the Rs. 10,00,000 threshold for the Deferment Scheme, 1987.

3. Opportunity to Opt for the Deferment Scheme, 1989:
The petitioner contended that if given a hearing, he would have opted for the Deferment Scheme, 1989, which had no minimum investment requirement. The court noted that the petitioner had ample opportunity to apply under the Deferment Scheme, 1989, but failed to do so. The scheme was promulgated on July 6, 1989, and the petitioner applied under the Deferment Scheme, 1987, after February 1, 1990. The court found no justification for the petitioner's delay in opting for the 1989 scheme.

4. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner argued that the principles of natural justice were violated as he was not given a copy of the survey report or an opportunity to be heard. The court observed that the petitioner was asked to explain the land valuation discrepancy before the Committee's decision, but he failed to provide a satisfactory explanation. The court held that the petitioner was not prejudiced by the lack of a hearing or the non-supply of the survey report, as the decision was based on undisputed investment figures in the factory building and plant and machinery.

5. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had alternative remedies, including an appeal to the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal and a review before the State Government. The court noted that the provision for appeal to the Tribunal was inserted after the petition was filed, and there was no statutory provision for reviewing the Committee's order. Thus, the court held that the writ petition was maintainable.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that the petitioner did not meet the investment threshold for the Deferment Scheme, 1987, had ample opportunity to opt for the Deferment Scheme, 1989, and was not prejudiced by the alleged procedural lapses. The petitioner had no alternative remedy at the time of filing the writ petition, making it maintainable.

← Previous Next →