9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 835X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferably within a period of 6 months from the date of appearance of the petitioners. - Writ Petition No. 28300 ,28298,28830 of 2003 - - - Dated:- 26-2-2008 - GARG R.S. AND SHAA S.C.RM , JJ. JUDGMENT :- The judgment of the court was delivered by R.S. GARG J. This judgment shall finally decide W.P. No. 28298 of 2003 (Bimla Steel Industry v. State of M. P. and others), W.P. No. 28300 of 2003 (D.J. Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M. P. and others) and W.P. No. 28830 of 2003 (Pithampur Oxygen Pvt Ltd. v. State of M.P. and others). The short facts necessary for decision of these three petitions are that the State Government vide its Notification No. A-3-24-94-ST-V (108) dated October 6, 1994 observed that the State Governme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of exemption from payment of tax under this notification. It also appears that vide another Notification No A-3-74-99-ST-V(48) dated June 9, 2000 the eligibility criteria was amended. Clause (a) remained as it is but sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) was substituted and after sub-clause (iii) sub-clause (iv) was added. The substituted and amended sub-clauses read as under: (ii) hold a letter of intent/licence/I.E.M. issued by the Government of India or are registered with the Commerce and Industries Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh on or before December 31, 1999 (2) After sub-clause (iii) the following sub-clause shall be inserted, namely: (iv) commences commercial production in the new industrial unit or in the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atters each of the petitioner filed appeal to the State Level Committee and as the appeals came to be dismissed the petitioners have filed these petitions. Shri Shashank Verma, learned counsel for each of the petitioner submitted that the amendment made in the original notification dated October 6, 1994 was per se illegal and contrary to the assurance given to the entrepreneurs who wanted to enter into the industrial activities and commence production. According to him when the notification was published in the Gazette on June 9, 2000 the cut-off date could not be fixed as December 31, 1999. It is also submitted by him that the petitioners in fact had taken effective steps as required under the amended sub-clause (iv) but the competent a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commerce and Industries Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh as a dealer establishing a new industrial unit or undertaking expansion in the existing industrial unit while the amended sub-clause (ii) provides who hold a letter of intent/licence/I.E.M. issued by the Government of India or (emphasis(1) supplied) are registered with the Commerce and Industries Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh on or before December 31, 1999 . Sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) did not withdraw all the benefits which were extended in favour of the new entrepreneurs. In fact it directed that the benefits would be available to all those who were registered with the Commerce and Industries Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh on or be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh the industry. These two conditions were in fact to put a check on the forged/false, manufactured or fabricated claims. Delivery of the possession before December 31, 1999 and application for finance from a regular financial institution could certainly prove through the official records that effective steps in fact had been taken. In case entrepreneurs falling under second clause satisfy the competent authority that they had fulfilled all the conditions, then they were certainly entitled to a certificate of exemption. (1)Here italicised. After, giving our thoughtful consideration to the facts and amendment we are unable to hold that the amendments made by the notification dated June 9, 2000 in the original notification dated October ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stand satisfied then obviously such an applicant/entrepreneur would be entitled to a certificate but in case he fails in proving either or any of the condition then certainly the authority would be entitled to refuse the certificate. In the present case, unfortunately, no opportunity of hearing or to lead evidence was provided to either of the petitioner. This non-action and illegality on the part of the officer has vitiated the non-grant of the certificate. The order dated November 22, 2001 annexure P13 in W.P. No. 28298 of 2003, order dated December 22, 2001 annexure P8 in W. P. No. 28300 of 2003 and order dated February 11, 2003 annexure P13 in W.P. No. 28830 of 2003 are hereby quashed and consequently the orders passed by the State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
