9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on under article 142. - Civil Appeal No. 8346 of 2005, 8347, 8348 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 4-5-2005 - RUMA PAL AND THAKKER C.K. JJ. Sunil Gupta, Senior Advocate (Gopal Prasad, Vivek Vishnoi and Prantap Kalra, Advocates, with him), for the respondents. Vijay Hansaria, Senior Advocate (P.I. Jose, Anupam Mishra, Shiv Mangal Sharma, Mrs. Kumud Lata Das and S.B. Upadhyay, Advocates, with him), for the appellants. -------------------------------------------------- ORDER The question in these appeals is whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of the incentive scheme which had been brought into effect by the State of Bihar in 1995. Under Bihar's Industrial Policy, with a view to attracting capital investment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t August, 2000 but one which had obtained a licence/letter of memo/letter of intent of registration certificate from the Industries Department/Industrial Area Development Authority/ Director of Industries or a competent authority of the Government of India. 3.. M/s. Beekay Steel Limited (whose appeal is taken up as the lead matter) applied for and obtained an industrial licence from the Government of India on 18th October, 1995. However, it could not commence production within the period 1st September, 1995 to 31st August, 2000. According to the appellant, this was because the electricity connection which had been promised to the industries setting up business within the State had not in fact been granted to the appellant within the afore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not apply to the committee but applied to the Director of Industries on 21st June, 2000 for the prior permission. The appellant has justified this move by stating that the first paragraph of the notification stated that the prior permission was to be granted by the State Government (Department of Industries). According to the appellant, the committee was merely to consider the grant. We will assume for the purpose of this appeal that the application was properly made. As it happened, there was no response to the application within 60 days. The appellant then applied to the Industrial Development Commissioner for prior permission. While the application was pending before the Industrial Development Commissioner, the State of Jharkhand, the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant was guilty of delay in applying for the prior permission. 10.. Before us the appellant has submitted that the appellant was being penalised for the gross inaction on the part of the respondent-authorities. It was stated that the appellant could have com- menced production within the period mentioned under the first notification but could not do so because of the non-supply of electricity by the State. It is said that repeated representations were made within the period of the first notification but the electricity was not supplied. It is, therefore, submitted on the basis of the authority of this Court in Hitech Electrothermics and Hydropower Ltd. v. State of Kerala See [2003] 129 STC 464.(2003) 2 SCC 716 that the appellant shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2) of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 in this connection. It is also submitted that the appellant has no right to claim exemption. It was open to the State of Jharkhand, assuming it to be properly arraigned in this appeal, to provide for an exemption on the basis of certain conditions. Relying on the authority of this Court in State Level Committee v. Morgardshammar India Ltd. See [1996] 101 STC 1 (SC).(1996) 1 SCC 108, it is submitted that this Court would not ignore these conditions and extend the exemptions. It is stated that in any event a person invoking an exception or an exemption provision must strictly see that the case falls within the plain language of the exemption and in case of doubt it must be resolved against the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the prior permission which was being withheld by reason only of the dilatory tactics on the part of the respondents. The period of 60 days from the date of the application expired in 2000. The writ petition in the appellant's as well as in Mittal Polypacks' case was filed after they had commenced production. We are of the view that the appellants have disentitled themselves to any relief by reason of delay. 17.. In any event, whether the appellants were in fact disabled from commencing production within the time granted by the first notification is a question of fact which this Court would not be in a position to resolve under article 226. We also do not think that this is an appropriate case for the exercise of our discretion under a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
