9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification issued in S.R.O. No. 1729 of 1993 is unconstitutional, unsustainable and illegal. Writ of mandamus was also sought for directing the first and second respondents to grant sales tax exemption to the appellant's unit in accordance with Notification S.R.O. No. 1729 of 1993. The appellant had purchased 29.387 cents of land for construction of factory for starting an offset press, vide registered sale deeds executed in the year 1997. Copies of the three sale deeds have been produced along with the writ petition covering pages 39 to 91 which made the case bundle bulky and unwieldy. Production of the copies of sale deeds was unnecessary. The details regarding the execution of the sale deeds would have been sufficient. Care should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakhs on October 27, 1999. The appellant applied for registration as a small-scale industrial unit to the General Manager, District Industries Centre and got provisional registration on August 14, 2000. The unit got permanent registration on November 5, 2001. According to the appellant, he could not start commercial production due to reasons beyond his control. Request for exemption was considered by the General Manager, District Industries Centre and the application was rejected stating as follows: The provisional registration of the unit is dated August 14, 2000. As the unit is not found eligible for sales tax exemption, the party was heard by General Manager to know the effective steps taken prior to January 1, 2000 for setting up t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce have rightly rejected the application. The appellant had started commercial production after January 1, 2000. The appellant would be entitled to get the benefit of S.R.O. No. 1092 of 1999 only if the appellants could establish that he had started commercial production prior to January 1, 2000. Admittedly, the production was started subsequent to that date. Hence he is not entitled to get exemption. This legal position has been reiterated by the apex court in the recent decision in State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cements [2005] 139 STC 74 (SC); [2004] 8 Supreme 163. The apex court was dealing with the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 read with section 7(3)(b) of the Industrial Promotion Policy, 1995. Reference was also made to S.O. Nos. 478 and 479 da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her submitted, in view of Notification S.R.O. No. 1729 of 1993, that the petitioner purchased the land and started construction of the building and applied for finance assistance. The petitioner, according to the counsel has altered his position to his detriment and the respondent cannot withdraw the notification. In our view, there is no factual or legitimate foundation to the petitioner's plea. Facts would show that the petitioner has not complied with the mandatory condition of starting production before January 1, 2000. In Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [2005] 139 STC 86 (SC); [2004] 8 Supreme 479, the apex court held that the rule of promissory estoppel can be invoked only if, on the basis of representation mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
