9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enquiry was held and additional material was sought for, obviously making the petitioner to believe that its application is pending consideration. Therefore, the blame is equally apportionable to both parties. If the petitioner is entitled to exemption on merits, it would be iniquitous to deny consideration of its application, merely because it was not addressed to the correct authority. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it would be in the fitness of things, if application, dated September 30, 2015, filed by the petitioner is treated as the one filed before the competent authority, i.e., respondent No. 1. Accordingly, respondent No. 4 is directed to forward the application filed by the petitioner for exemption in form 56 along with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated September 29, 2010, as a result of which APPCB was not liable to pay tax from the assessment year 2009-10. Consequent on bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh on formation of the State of Telangana, the latter has constituted the petitioner - Telangana State Pollution Control Board for the State of Telangana under G. O. Ms. No. 2, Environment, Forests, Science and Technology (Env.) Department, dated July 7, 2014, under the provisions of section 4 of the Water Act. The newly constituted Board (the petitioner) has subsequently adopted the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. 4. The petitioner has pleaded, with reference to which there is no dispute, that the purposes and objects for which it was constitute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that since such an application was received on September 30, 2015 and no order was passed rejecting the said application, an order is deemed to have been passed granting the petitioner exemption under sub- clause (iv) of section 10(23C) of the Act. On receipt of this letter, respondent No. 1, by order, dated March 7, 2017, has informed the petitioner that its application in form 56 along with the enclosures was taken on file by respondent No. 4 and the said officer has inadvertently issued notice calling for details without the knowledge of the undersigned (respondent No. 1) ; that the time limit prescribed for grant of approval/rejection of exemption is twelve months from the end of the month in which the application in form 56 was filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in the counter-affidavit are not suggestive of any mal intention on the part of the petitioner to file the application before the wrong authority. Therefore, we have no reason to reject the plea of the petitioner that inadvertently, the application was filed before respondent No. 4. When the petitioner filed the application before the wrong authority, the same should have been returned. As noted hereinbefore, instead of returning the petitioner's application, an enquiry was held and additional material was sought for, obviously making the petitioner to believe that its application is pending consideration. Therefore, on the facts of the case, the blame is equally apportionable to both parties. If the petitioner is entitled to exemptio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
