2019 (8) TMI 1597 - HC - Indian Laws

Industrial Park Scheme - Automatic Route - condition for utilization for a single industrial unit - On inspection, it is found that petitioner has utilized more than 90% which is in violation of the scheme and the learned counsel justified withdrawal order - non-application of mind - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - In these two allotment Automatic Route and Non-automatic Route , the condition looked into by the petitioner under Automatic Route under Section 6(f) of IPS 2002, where an allottee shall not use more than 50% form the allocable area whereas in Non-Automatic Route 90% is reserved for industrial purpose. When the allotment for Automatic Route has been withdrawn and accepted. Without looking into the provisions for allotment of Non-automatic Route and with non application of mind, this appeal has been filed. The sanction made under the Automatic Route and Non-Automatic Route of IPS 2002, is perused. It is found form the Non-Automatic Route which allowed 90% for industrial purpose and 10% for commercial use. When such is the condition and thecompliance by the respondent, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned SingleJudge. The petitioner has not placed any justifiable ground for withdrawal of the scheme allotted under Non-Automatic Route . It is submitted, the respondent/petitioner is entitled to tax benefit under the Non-Automatic Route , then liberty is reserved to the respondent to make necessary application for the tax benefit. In such an event, the same shall be considered by the appellant. This Court vide order dated 16.03.2017, has recorded that the respondent shall be entitled to tax exemption, the same shall be extended to the respondent, in accordance with law. Appeal dismissed.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of conditions under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 regarding "Automatic Route" and "Non-automatic Route."
2. Alleged violation of conditions under Section 6(f) of the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002.
3. Withdrawal of permission granted under the "Non-automatic Route" and subsequent legal challenge.
4. Justifiability of withdrawal of permission based on alleged violation of conditions.
5. Examination of compliance with conditions under the "Non-automatic Route" and justification for withdrawal.

Issue 1: Interpretation of conditions under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 regarding "Automatic Route" and "Non-automatic Route."
The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion introduced the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002, which included the "Automatic Route" and "Non-automatic Route." Under the "Automatic Route," a condition (6(f)) required 50% of allocable land to be used for industry. The petitioner initially applied under the "Automatic Route," which was approved. Later, the petitioner applied for the "Non-automatic Route" and surrendered the approved lands for the same. The "Non-automatic Route" was granted with conditions of 90% allocable area for industrial use and 10% for commercial use.

Issue 2: Alleged violation of conditions under Section 6(f) of the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002.
Subsequently, the respondent alleged that the petitioner violated Section 6(f) by using 90% of the allocable area for industrial purposes under the "Non-automatic Route." A show cause notice was issued, and despite the petitioner's compliance with the conditions of the "Non-automatic Route," a withdrawal letter was issued, citing the violation of Section 6(f) as the reason for withdrawal.

Issue 3: Withdrawal of permission granted under the "Non-automatic Route" and subsequent legal challenge.
The withdrawal of permission granted under the "Non-automatic Route" was challenged in a writ petition before the learned Single Judge, who set aside the withdrawal order. The government appealed this decision, arguing that the petitioner exceeded the permissible limit under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002.

Issue 4: Justifiability of withdrawal of permission based on alleged violation of conditions.
The government contended that the petitioner's use of 90% of the allocable area for industrial purposes was in violation of the scheme's conditions. However, the petitioner argued that compliance was made as per the approved scheme, which allowed 90% of the allocable area for industrial use. The petitioner presented justifiable reasons for their actions and sought dismissal of the appeal.

Issue 5: Examination of compliance with conditions under the "Non-automatic Route" and justification for withdrawal.
The High Court examined the conditions of both the "Automatic Route" and "Non-automatic Route" under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002. It was noted that the "Non-automatic Route" allowed for 90% of the allocable area to be used for industrial purposes. The Court found no infirmity in the order passed by the Single Judge, as the petitioner had complied with the conditions of the "Non-automatic Route." The appeal was dismissed, confirming the Single Judge's decision, and the respondent was granted tax benefits under the "Non-automatic Route."

← Previous Next →