MEHTA OXYGEN PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.Siraj Gori, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of Rule for the respondents. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) Petitioner No.1 - Company - MEHTA OXYGEN PVT.LTD. (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') has set up an Oxygen plant for manufacturing Oxygen gas at Plot No.69, GIDC, Vartej, District Bhavnagar. The commercial production commenced on 31/1/1997. The Government of Gujarat framed a Scheme called "Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme 1990-95" for providing exemption from payment of sales tax to new industrial units. Such benefits were to be granted to the industrial units set up during the operative period of the said scheme which was from 16/8/1990 to 15/8/1995. The second scheme commenced from 16/8/1995 and was operative till 15/8/2000. It appears that the petitioner had acquired some of the assets during the operative period of the 1990-1995 Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the "first scheme") and also applied for registration under the said scheme. However, since the other assets could be acquired and taken delivery of, only after commencement of the second scheme, the petitioner applied for registration under the second scheme i.e. 1995-2000. There were a large number of plant and machineries which the petitioner acquired after 15/8/1995 but the petitioner had made advance payments for purchasing such plant and machineries before 15/8/1995. The respondent authorities while considering the petitioners' application for exemption under the second scheme did not take into account the plant and machineries actually acquired after 15/8/1995 but paid for prior to 15/8/1995 on the ground that the payments of plant and machineries acquired were not made after commencement of the second scheme. According to the petitioner, plant and machineries worth are Rs.64 lakhs. The respondent authorities assessed the exemption benefit only by taking into account assets worth Rs.8 lacs which prompted the petitioner to request the authorities to switch over its option from the second scheme to the first scheme which came to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner unit had commenced commercial production in January 1997 and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to get any benefit under the first scheme.

(3.) The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition -