9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 876X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en taken so far by the State Government after the sanction of the scheme. It is also clear that the High Level Committee has not considered the petitioner's claim on the merits but has merely observed that the petitioner's claim cannot be considered by it for want of necessary powers/jurisdiction for the same. In the aforesaid circumstances we feel it necessary to issue directions to the State Government for taking appropriate decision on the petitioner's claim at the earliest on the basis of the scheme sanctioned by the BIFR keeping in view the provisions contained in SICA. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation dated October 6, 1994 in respect of its HIPRO-EOU Division for a period of five years from February 1, 1996 to January 31, 2001. As the petitioner's unit remained non-operative for a period of 1,362 days, it could not avail of the benefit of exemption during the period of eligibility. In the circumstances, the petitioner approached the State Level Committee for extension of exemption vide application dated November 21, 2001. The State Level Committee rejected the petitioner's prayer in its meeting held on October 31, 2003 by observing that there is no provision for extension of the period of exemption. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State appellate forum. The matter was referred to the Cabinet Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in respect of Commercial Tax, Central sales tax, value added tax and entry tax for the number of days the unit remained non-operative (application for which is pending before the Cabinet Committee) and for a further period of five years after expiry of period extended as per particulars above. The case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid scheme sanctioned by the BIFR has never been challenged by the State authorities and the same having become final, by virtue of the provisions of section 19 of the SICA, the said directions of the BIFR are binding on the State of Madhya Pradesh as also on the Commercial Tax Department. According to the petitioner ignoring the provisions contained in section 19 of the SICA, the impugned decision dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons contained in the scheme sanctioned by the BIFR and also keeping in view the provisions of the SICA. However, undisputedly no such decision has been taken so far by the State Government after the sanction of the scheme. It is also clear that the High Level Committee has not considered the petitioner's claim on the merits but has merely observed that the petitioner's claim cannot be considered by it for want of necessary powers/jurisdiction for the same. In the aforesaid circumstances we feel it necessary to issue directions to the State Government for taking appropriate decision on the petitioner's claim at the earliest on the basis of the scheme sanctioned by the BIFR keeping in view the provisions contained in SICA. Needle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
