9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 787X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh the petitioner continued to carry out the production of biscuits with effect from 28.03.2012 and have been filing the returns with the Income Tax Department and the assessment proceedings u/s 153(A)/143(3) of the Income Tax Act for the annual years, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 were initiated because of the date of production shown as 12.06.2012 and the deductions claimed by the petitioner were being withdrawn. Since the respondents have failed to take a decision for grant of date of production as on 28.03.2012 in conformity with the interim direction passed by this Court coupled with the observation of the Director Industries and Commerce, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-unit submitted that he would be satisfied at this stage in case if a direction is issued to the respondents to accord consideration to the unit of the petitioner within some reasonable time in the light of the observations of the concerned Director, i.e., respondent No. 2 and to the aforesaid preposition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have no objection. The present petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to accord conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same was valid till December, 2012. Further, the case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the issuance to the aforesaid registration, the petitioner purchased the plant and machinery for the production and manufacturing of biscuits and from 28.03.2012 onwards, the petitioner started the manufacturing activity in the Unit. 4. Mr. Pranav Kohli, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner vide communication dated 28.03.2012 addressed to respondent No. 4 requested the said respondents to issue formal registration in favour of the petitioner-unit with effect from the actual date of production, i.e., 28.03.2012. Learned counsel with a view to substantiate his claim with regard to the starting of the manufacturing activity from the said date has produced on record the stock register which clearly shows that the petitioner commenced the manufacturing activity in the unit with effect from 28.03.2012. It is not so even the petitioner has purchased the raw material for the production of the biscuits and the manufactured finish goods/biscuits which were also sold in the market on 28.03.3012 under proper invoices. The copies of which have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accord consideration with respect to the recording date of production as 28.03.2012 instead of 12.06.2012, if there is no legal impediment. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the said direction was issued way back on 30.11.2018 and the respondents till date have not implemented the same for more than five years. The positive case of the petitioner is that his case has not been accorded consideration in conformity with the interim direction passed by this Court coupled with the observation made in communication dated 14.06.2012, whereby, the petitioner has submitted all the requisite documentary evidence to prove that the production of the unit has commenced on 28.03.2012. The respondents were under legal obligation qua the petitioner s unit to have submitted the case for final decision for grant of DOP. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that the unit of the petitioner has procured the land on lease hold basis and has installed the plant and machinery and the raw material was also procured for production and there is no doubt that the production of the unit has commenced on 28.03.2012 for the goods for which the uni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03.2012. He further submits that DG Set, Fitness Certificate issued by the Power Development Department on 11.06.2012 was made available by the unit holder to the office of the Directorate of Industries Commerce, Jammu on 12.06.2012. The respondents have taken a specific stand that the majority of machines installed by the petitioner was ready for production on 12.06.2012 and this was precisely the reason that the unit was granted registration on 12.06.2012 instead of 28.03.2012. The specific case of the respondents is that the unit of the petitioner was registered provisionally under the medium scale vide registration No. IDC/SWSC/PP/Reg/2012/160 dated 13.03.2012 for the line activity i.e., manufacturing of Biscuits, which was duly approved by the competent authority in 31st meeting held on 16.02.2012. 12. Reply has also been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, in which specific stand has been taken that in terms of the Government order and the policy, provisional registration for medium and large scale units is granted after being approved by the Apex Projects Clearance Committee (APCC). In the present case, the approval of the said committee was granted on 16.02.2012 by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he interim order passed by this Court till date has not been implemented as the respondents have not accorded consideration in conformity with the direction passed by this Court nor the respondents have taken a decision as per the mandate and spirit of the observations which finds mention in their own communication dated 14.06.2012 which has been issued by the Director Industries and Commerce and addressed to the General Manager District Centre, Jammu. The respondents were under a legal obligation qua the petitioner to have given due weightage to the recommendation of the Director Industries and Commerce, Jammu while according formal registration in favour of the petitioner s unit with effect from 28.03.2012 in the communication mentioned supra wherein it has been observed in para 3 which is reproduced as under:- 3. Regarding intimation of Date of Production by the unit on 28.03.2012, there was no reason to doubt the contention of the unit and should have been accepted. Preferably, the unit should have been got inspected on same day to clear doubts, if any. 5. The unit be advised to submit the documentary evidence of having started the production on 28.03.2012 and case be subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the Income Tax Department and the assessment proceedings under Section 153(A)/143(3) of the Income Tax Act for the annual years, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 were initiated because of the date of production shown as 12.06.2012 and the deductions claimed by the petitioner were being withdrawn. 18. Since the respondents have failed to take a decision for grant of date of production as on 28.03.2012 in conformity with the interim direction passed by this Court mentioned (supra) coupled with the observation of the Director Industries and Commerce, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-unit submitted that he would be satisfied at this stage in case if a direction is issued to the respondents to accord consideration to the unit of the petitioner within some reasonable time in the light of the observations of the concerned Director, i.e., respondent No. 2 and to the aforesaid preposition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have no objection. 19. In the light of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to accord consideration to the case of the petitioner to have commenced the produ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
