2017 (1) TMI 103 - HC - Income Tax

Benefits of tax holiday under Section 80 IC - incorrect name of the village - the name of village Nandpur Narka Topa was erroneously written as Nandpur Narka Ropa due to some typing or clerical mistake - correction of name in the notification - Held that - Due to some mistake committed by someone in the district level itself at the time of sending of the proposal, the name of village, within which petitioner s Unit is situated, was not mentioned correctly and incorrect name was mentioned and, due to this reason, the petitioner s Unit could not get the benefit of that notification. The question is whether any injustice, which is caused to the party by some wrong action of the government official, should be permitted to continue on the technical ground? My answer to this query is no. The law is made to give justice to all. In my view, this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can pass appropriate order for giving justice to the aggrieved party. The Principal Secretary Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises, Government of Uttarakhand, in her counter affidavit, has, in clear words, written that the actual name of the village is Village Nandpur Narka Topa and there is no village in the name of Village Nandpur Narka Ropa in Tehsil Bazpur. The mistake was certainly committed by some official working in the revenue department of district Udham Singh Nagar. The petitioner cannot be held responsible for that mistake. Considering all the those facts mentioned herein above and also considering the statement given by the learned Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India on 04.06.2015 that appropriate decision correcting name of the village can be taken.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Typographical error in the notification regarding the village name.
2. Denial of income tax exemption benefits to the petitioner’s unit.
3. Authority of the court to direct the Central Government to amend its notification.
4. Responsibility for the clerical error.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Typographical Error in the Notification Regarding the Village Name:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to correct a clerical mistake in Notification No. 177 of 2004, where the village name "Nandpur Narka Topa" was erroneously mentioned as "Nandpur Ka Ropa." The petitioner contended that there is no village named "Nandpur Ka Ropa" in Tehsil Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. This error was confirmed by a report from the Halka Patwari, countersigned by the Tehsildar, Bazpur, stating that "Nandpur Narka Topa" was mistakenly recorded as "Nandpur Ka Ropa."

2. Denial of Income Tax Exemption Benefits to the Petitioner’s Unit:
The petitioner’s manufacturing unit, situated in Khasra numbers 3/3/3 and 3/3/1 in village Nandpur Narka Topa, was denied income tax exemption benefits due to the incorrect village name in the notification. The petitioner argued that the error was not their fault and that the State Government should have corrected the name in the proposal sent to the Central Government.

3. Authority of the Court to Direct the Central Government to Amend Its Notification:
The court acknowledged that it cannot issue a mandamus to the Central Government to amend its notification, as per the precedent set by the Division Bench in Writ Petition (M/B) No.628 of 2005. The court emphasized that it cannot expand policy decisions or rectify mistakes made by the State Government in the notification process.

4. Responsibility for the Clerical Error:
The Principal Secretary, Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises, Government of Uttarakhand, confirmed in a counter affidavit that there is no village named "Nandpur Narka Ropa" in Tehsil Bazpur, and the correct name is "Nandpur Narka Topa." The court noted that the mistake was committed by a district-level official, not the petitioner. Consequently, the court directed the State Government to verify the facts and, if confirmed, send a fresh proposal to the Central Government to correct the village name in the notification.

Judgment:
The court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions:
1. The petitioner must serve a certified copy of the judgment to the Principal Secretary, Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises, Government of Uttarakhand within two weeks.
2. The State Government must verify the village name based on revenue records and, if found incorrect, send a fresh proposal to the Central Government within two weeks.
3. The Central Government must decide on the proposal within two months and inform the State Government, Income Tax Department, and the petitioner.
4. The State Government must take action against the official responsible for the clerical error.

By addressing these issues comprehensively, the court aimed to rectify the clerical mistake and ensure the petitioner’s unit receives the entitled benefits.