LexSTATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. versus AMBAY CEMENTS AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. v. AMBA Y CEMENTS AND ANR. NOVEMBER 17, 2004 [S.N. VARIAVA, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] Bihar Industrial Promotion Policy, 1995-New pipeline industrial unit in small scale sector-Exemption from sales tax-Grant of-Requirement A B of obtaining prior permission of State Government in the Industries C Department before 31.8.2000 in addition to temporary registration for seeking exemption as new industrial unit as per the Notifications-Nature of-Held : Such condition prescribed by the Authorities is mandatory for availing exemption-On facts, small scale industrial unit obtained temporary Registration Certificate which cannot be construed as prior permission of D Industries Department-Hence, industrial unit cannot be deemed to be a new industrial writ and non-compliance thereof would disentitle them from grant of exemption-Also High Court cannot direct grant of exemption overlooking the statutory conditions prescribed, that too in the absence of any challenge to the validity of such condition-Bihar Finance Act, 198 ]- Section 7(3)(b)-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226. E Interpretation of statutes : Taxing statutes-Exemption clause-Providing concessional rate of tax-Construction of-Held : Such clause should be strictly construed- Court should not ignore the conditions prescribed in the Industrial Policy and the exemption Notifications since it is the cardinal rule of interpretation that when statute prescribes particular act to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in the manner prescribed-Industrial Promotion Policy, 1995-Bihar Finance Act, 1981. The erstwhile State of Bihar framed Industrial Promotion Policy, 1995 and gtanted exemption to newly set up small scale industries from F G Sale Tax on a purchase of raw materials and sale of finished products. Notification No. S.O. 478/479 dated 22.12.1995 were issued for implementation of the policy and exemption from sale tax was granted H 125 126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A to those new industrial units which started production between 1.09.1995 and 31.08.2000 and obtained Registration Certificate from the competent Authority. Industrial Policy was then amended and certain reliefs were provided to pipeline industries. Thereafter, Notifications S.O. 57 and 58 dated 2.3.2000 were issued which amended Notification No. S.O. 478/ B 479 dated 22.12.1995 providing that the pipeline industries to be treated as new industrial units for the purposes of exemption under S.O. 478 and 479 should obtain prior permission of the State Government Industries Department before 31.8.2000 and should commence production within 5 years from the date of obtaining prior permission in addition to obtaining registration certificate from the competent C Authority. Respondent, a small scale industry obtained temporary registration from the General Manager of the Industries Centre on 5.5.2000 and applied for grant of exemption. Joint Commissioner rejected the D application on 11.9.2000 since the respondent did not obtain the prior permission from the State Government Industries Department. Respondent started its commercial production from 2.4.2001 and applied for eligibility certificate under the S.O. 478/479 dated 22.12.1995 read with Notifications S.O. 57 and 58 dated 2.3.2000 on 2.4.2001 which was rejected. Aggrieved respondent filed writ petition. High Court allowed E the petition holding that the temporary registration certificate can be treated as prior permission of the State Government and remitted back the matter to the Joint Commissioner. Hence the present appeal. Appellant-State contended that obtaining a separate prior p permission from State Government Industries Department to be eligible for exemption as contemplated in the notification is a mandatory condition and non-compliance of the same would disentitle the respondent from grant of exemption; and that the High Court erred in directing the grant of exemption in favour of the respondent overlooking the statutory conditions prescribed more so, in the absence of any challenge G to the validity of such conditions. Respondent No. 1 contended that the temporary Registration Certificate granted by the Industries Department of the State Government is in fact a prior permission as contemplated under Notifications S.O. H 478/479 dated 22.12.1995 read with Notifications S.O. 57 and 58 dated STATE v
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.