9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (7) TMI 322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd other chemicals. It is the petitioner s case that it became entitled to the benefits of cash subsidy and sales tax deferment under the G.R. dated May 18, 1982, notwithstanding the subsequent G.R. dated May 19, 1982, which included the industry manufacturing all plastic products made from high density polyethylene in the list of excluded industries. It, therefore, applied to the Industries Commissioner for an eligibility certificate. The Industries Commissioner granted such a certificate on March 7, 1983. It was also paid cash subsidy on September 1, 1983, June 18, 1983 and January 27, 1984. On March 14, 1983, the petitioner applied to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, respondent No. 3, for a certificate of entitlement of sales tax deferment. Respondent No. 3, by his order, dated April 18, 1984, rejected that application, on the ground that the industry of the petitioner was one of the excluded industries and, therefore, not entitled to the incentive benefits. Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 65 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. That appeal was dismissed. It has, therefore, filed this petition. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity polyethylene and that the steps taken by it for the purpose of establishing the industry for manufacturing such articles were the result of the promise made by the Government in that behalf. 5.. In the petition, what the petitioner has stated is that the incentives, which were published by the Government, were: (i) grant of cash subsidy; (ii) exemption from payment of sales tax; and (iii) interest-free sales tax loan scheme. The petitioner has referred to the resolution dated December 22, 1977, whereby the Government had declared the new industries scheme for cash subsidy for industrial units to be set-up in developing areas and the scheme for sales tax exemption and grant of loan in respect of amount of sales tax paid on sales of finished products. It has then referred to the resolution dated August 27, 1980, whereby the earlier resolution dated December 22, 1977 with respect to the sales tax benefits was replaced and a new scheme of sales tax incentives was brought into force with effect from June 1, 1980 for a period of five years. It is then stated that, under the resolution, 15 industries were excluded from the benefit of the sales tax incentive scheme. It is the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the resolution dated August 27, 1980. It appears that, while defining the phrase new industry , the State Government lost sight of its own resolution, dated January 7, 1982 and, therefore, specified only 14 industries as not included within the definition of that phrase. To correct that mistake, it passed the resolution dated September 15, 1982. Even though this mistake was committed by the Government, it cannot induce us to believe that the representation, which was made, or the promise, which was given by the Government resolution dated March 18, 1982, was that only 14 industries specified in that Resolution were excluded from the purview of the scheme. Resolution dated January 7, 1982 was applicable to all incentive schemes and it was clearly stated therein that, after reviewing the whole position, the Government had prepared a comprehensive list of industries, which were not to be regarded as eligible for the incentives contained in the resolutions referred to in the said resolution. It was clearly stated therein that the industries mentioned in annexure I to that resolution were not to be regarded as eligible for any of the incentives. Thus, by that resolution, it was clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.. Even on facts, the petitioner has no case. Except stating that the petitioner had obtained a plot of land and placed an order for machinery and paid an advance of Rs. 70,000 towards the same, the petitioner has not produced any material to show that it had decided to establish the new industry because of such representation and that it would not have set-up the industry if it had known that the benefits of cash subsidy and sales tax deferment were not to be available to it. If the petitioner had really decided to set-up an industry in view of the Government resolution as stated in the petition, it would have surely enquired whether resolution dated January 7, 1982, was effective after the passing of the resolution dated March 18, 1982. The entrepreneur, who bona fide wanted to take advantage of the incentives shown by the Government, would have surely considered all the resolutions and at once, he would have been put on guard that because of the resolution dated January 7, 1982, it was quite likely that the benefit would be denied to those industries, which were mentioned in that resolution. Admittedly, no enquiry whatsoever was made nor any clarification sought by the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
