9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on made in the Rules. This court in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction cannot direct the authorities to frame the Rules. - Writ petition dismissed. - CWP No. 3847 of 2014 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 10-8-2016 - MR. RAJESH BINDAL AND MR. HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, JJ. For The Petitioner : Mr. Arun Nehra Mr. Sant Kashyap, Advocates For The Respondent : Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab Rajesh Bindal J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning the order dated 17.12.2013 (Annexure P-15), whereby the request of the petitioner for extension of period of benefit for exemption from payment of sales tax was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of caustic soda and other in-organic chemicals. It had been promoted by the Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (for short, 'PSIDC'), which is wholly owned Punjab Government Company. PSIDC holds 44% shares of the petitioner-company. New Industrial Policy, 1996 (hereinafter described as the 1996 Policy ) was notified by the Government on 20.3.1996, which provided fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich was dismissed as withdrawn on 26.7.2013 with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Again a representation was made by the company on 16.8.2013 to the Financial Commissioner, Department of Excise and Taxation and Principal Secretary, Department of Industries and Commerce for the same relief, which was rejected vide communication dated 17.12.2013. 4. Impugning the aforesaid communication, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is specified period provided under the Rules for issuance of eligibility certificate and the exemption certificate after the application is filed. The petitioner had fulfilled all the pre-requisite conditions for issuance of eligibility certificate, but still the authorities delayed issuance thereof and as a result, the petitioner could not avail of the benefit to the extent of its entitlement. Once the maximum limit for which the benefit could be availed of by the petitioner had not expired and merely the period had expired, the extension should have been granted. The provision provides for the benefit to be availed from the date of production, which is not possible as issuance of eligibility and e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exemption certificates were issued to the petitioner, it did not raise the issue regarding the date of entitlement, as the certificates clearly mentioned that the same were valid from the date of production. It was strictly in terms of the provisions of the Rules. First representation by the petitioner was made on 22.9.2008. After considering the fact that PSIDC had substantial stake in the company, the matter was considered at different levels and was finally rejected on 24.5.2010, which was conveyed to PSIDC as well as the petitioner-company. The order was impugned by the petitioner more than three years thereafter by filing CWP No. 15831 of 2013, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail of any other remedy in accordance with law. The delay in filing the writ petition impugning the rejection of the claim of the petitioner has not been explained at all. Thereafter, again without availing the statutory remedy as provided for under the Act against the orders passed by the authorities, the petitioner thought of filing fresh representation only, which was again rejected vide communication dated 17.12.2013. 7. The submission is that firstly there is no provision under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in favour of the petitioner on 3.1.2001. At that stage, the petitioner did not raise any plea regarding extending the period of eligibility from the date of issuance of eligibility or exemption certificates, rather, the conduct of the petitioner shows that it was not interested in availing the benefits. As is evident from the fact that exemption certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner on 3.1.2001, but for the reasons best known to the petitioner, it started availing the benefit only from 1.4.2003, after a gap of more than two years. 10. Though earlier Chairman of the petitioner-company, who was none else than the Secretary of the Department of the Industries, Govt. of Punjab, wrote a DO letter to the Financial Commissioner, Department of Excise and Taxation for extending the period of eligibility on 11/26.2.2010, however, first representation was made by the company on 22.9.2008 when the period of eligibility was going to expire. The same was considered at various levels keeping in view the fact that in the petitioner-company, PSIDC, which is government owned company, had 44% stake, but still as the request of the petitioner could not be acceded to in view of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
