9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (4) TMI 1242 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether the date of commencement of commercial production under the Incentive Scheme of 2001 be extended? Held that - It is by now well-settled that to issue a writ of mandamus, there must be existence of a legal right in the petitioner and corresponding legal duty on the respondent. It is also well-settled that writ of mandamus is not a writ of course, or a writ of right, but is, as a rule, a discretionary remedy. Existence of a legal right in the petitioner and corresponding legal duty on the respondent are the conditions precedent for issuing mandamus. In other words, it is often stated that mandamus is employed to enforce a duty, the performance of which is mandatory or imperative and not optional or discretionary with the authority concerned. We also find that previously, the scheme was extended twice. The same was general and not in individual cases. Under the circumstances, when we find that the Government refused to extend the benefits of the scheme in favour of the petitioner, being an individual case, we do not see any reason to grant any mandamus. It is not even the case of the petitioner that any individual extensions were granted by the State. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the order dated May 18, 2010, by the Committee for Resolution of Disputes. 2. Challenging the communication dated March 14, 2011, by the State Government. 3. Request for a mandamus to extend the benefit of the Incentive Scheme of 2001. 4. Consideration of the principle of promissory estoppel. 5. Examination of the delay in commencement of commercial production. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Quashing of the Order Dated May 18, 2010 The petitioner sought to quash the order dated May 18, 2010, by the Committee for Resolution of Disputes, which declined the request for tax exemptions under the Incentive Scheme of 2001. The committee rejected the request on several grounds: - The company did not fulfill the criteria of a pipeline case under the Government resolution. - The unit commenced production 15 months after the last eligible date. - There was no provision to extend the date of production. - The State Level Committee lacked the authority to relax the criteria. - The signing of MOUs did not automatically obligate the Government to provide all facilities. Issue 2: Challenging the Communication Dated March 14, 2011 The petitioner also challenged the State Government's communication dated March 14, 2011, which rejected the request for extending the benefit of the Incentive Scheme of 2001. The State Government cited: - The unit started commercial production after the extended period. - It was not the policy to extend the incentive scheme on a case-by-case basis. - No individual unit was granted benefits after the scheme's completion. Issue 3: Request for a Mandamus to Extend the Benefit of the Incentive Scheme of 2001 The petitioner requested a mandamus to extend the benefit of the Incentive Scheme of 2001, arguing that delays were beyond their control. They claimed that the State Government failed to provide promised infrastructure, causing further delays. The court noted that the scheme aimed to revive economic activities post-earthquake and had specific deadlines. The court found no provision in the scheme for individual extensions and noted that previous extensions were general and not case-specific. Issue 4: Consideration of the Principle of Promissory Estoppel The petitioner argued for the application of promissory estoppel, citing the State Government's promises in the MOU. The court examined the MOU and found no unequivocal promise to provide all necessary facilities. The court emphasized that promissory estoppel requires clear, sound, and positive foundation in the petition, which was lacking in this case. The court referred to precedents, stating that general offers of assistance by the Government cannot be considered firm promises for invoking promissory estoppel. Issue 5: Examination of the Delay in Commencement of Commercial Production The court observed that the project was envisaged in 1999, and despite extensions, the petitioner could not commence commercial production within the extended deadlines. The court noted that the scheme's purpose was to attract investments and create employment post-earthquake, which required adherence to specific timeframes. The court found that the petitioner's delays were not justified and that the Government's refusal to extend benefits was within its policy framework. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the arguments for quashing the committee's order, challenging the State Government's communication, or extending the scheme's benefits. The court held that the petitioner did not establish a case for promissory estoppel and that the delays in commencing production were not attributable to the State Government. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the scheme's deadlines to fulfill its objective of reviving economic activities in the earthquake-affected region.
|
