9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (6) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een averred in the writ petition, in short, as follows: The petitioner set up a new industrial unit under the name and style of M/s. Gem Techno Chem. Commercial production of zinc oxide started with effect from February 1, 1990. He had invested more than Rs. 10 lakhs and has thus altered his position with a view to take the benefits under the Deferment Scheme, 1987. He moved application (annexure 1) for the grant of eligibility certificate with effect from June 21, 1990, mentioning the value of the eligible fixed capital investment as Rs. 11,85,650. Certificate dated June 4, 1990 (annexure 2) of M/s. S.C. Bothra & Co., Chartered Accountants, Jaipur, was enclosed with it. The Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle "A", Jaipur (respondent No. 3) surveyed his business premises and factory. Neither the result of survey was communicated to him nor an opportunity of hearing was given to controvert the survey report. By letter dated September 28, 1991 (annexure 3), the District Level Screening Committee intimated that his application was considered in the meeting held on August 30, 1991 and the same has been rejected on the ground that his fixed capital investment was Rs. 9,58,150 only and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/Acctts/STE/Sch/1500 dated September 5, 1990. No satisfactory answer was given, the matter was placed before the said committee and it was rejected. There exists no provision for granting an opportunity of hearing to an applicant before deciding his application for grant of eligibility certificate under the Deferment Scheme, 1987. The petitioner had alternative remedy by way of filing appeal before the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal under clause 6 of the Deferment Scheme, 1987 and also for review under clause 11 before the State Government and as such the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner is free to apply under the Deferment Scheme, 1989. 4. In his rejoinder, the petitioner has averred that the amount of investment of Rs. 9,58,150, mentioned in the order, annexure R/1, is not correct. Neither the value of the land has been taken into consideration nor any reason has been advanced for not accepting the value of the land as claimed by him. In the certificate, annexure 2, of the Chartered Accountants, it clearly mentioned that the land has been valued on the basis of RIICO's rates. According to the principle of natural justice, a copy of the survey report should have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner has not indicated either in his writ petition or in his rejoinder the investment made by him in the land on which the industrial unit has been established. He further contended that as per lease deed of RIICO, the petitioner had invested only Rs. 24,286 in the land and letter No. 41220/Acctts/STE/SCH/1500 dated September 5, 1990 was issued to him for explaining this difference but no explanation was offered by him, para No. 8 of the reply contains these averments and they have not been denied in the rejoinder. 8.. There is no substance in the preliminary objection of the respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner could have filed an appeal or review application against the order dated August 30, 1991 (annexure 4). The writ petition was filed on January 31, 1992. Clause 7A relating to appeal to the Tribunal was inserted in the Deferment Scheme, 1987 with effect from March 4, 1992 vide Notification No. SO/305/F.4(7)FD/GroupIV/92/84 published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated March 4, 1992, page Nos. 455457. There is no provision in the scheme for reviewing an order like order dated August 30, 1991 (annexure 4) of the Di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on which he has established the industrial unit. The word "investment" has not been defined in the Deferment Scheme, 1987. It is not a word of art. It is to be interpreted in the popular sense. It means nothing more or less than to lay out the money. Under the heading of investment in land, not more than Rs. 27,163 can be taken into consideration. 10. There is no dispute in between the parties on the amount of investment in the factory building, i.e., Rs. 1,86,495.20 and also on the amount of investment in the plant and machinery, i.e., Rs. 7,71,655, total Rs. 9,58,150. Adding the said amount of Rs. 27,163.80 in Rs. 9,58,150, total comes to Rs. 9,85,313.80, less than Rs. 10 lacs. According to the above quoted explanation, the petitioner was not eligible for the benefits under the Deferment Scheme of 1987. 11. There is no force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a copy of the survey report, annexure R/1, was not provided to the petitioner before acting upon it and no opportunity of hearing was given before taking the decision annexure 4. In para 8 of the reply, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have averred that before putting the matter before the comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 10 lacs. As already observed in para 11 supra, before the matter was placed before the District Level Screening Committee, the petitioner was asked to explain the difference in the valuation of the land and no satisfactory explanation was furnished by him. The petitioner had enough opportunity to opt for the Deferment Scheme, 1989. Nothing has been averred in the writ petition which prevented him from opting for the Deferment Scheme, 1989 before his application (annexure 1) was rejected on August 30, 1991 by order, annexure 4, or initially applying under the Deferment Scheme, 1989. 14.. Clause 5(a) of the Deferment Scheme, 1989 runs as under: (a) An industrial unit covered by sub-clause (c) or (d) of clause (1) of this Scheme, may make an application for change of option to the appropriate authority within 180 days from the date of the publication of this scheme in the Official Gazette, and the said authority shall be competent to entertain such application, on sufficient grounds, even after the said period of limitation." This period of 180 days expired even before the application (annexure 1) was moved by the petitioner under the Deferment Scheme, 1987. The Deferment Sch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
