I C TEXTILES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Company incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act,1956. This petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs :

(2.) According to the petitioner the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner's case for Status of prestigious unit under the 'Capital Investment Incentive to Premier/Prestigious unit Scheme 1995-2000' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme') and thus not granting prestigious unit status to the petitioner under the Scheme and initiating action for assessment and recovery of sales tax dues under the provisions of Gujarat Sales Tax, 1969, are bad in law.

(3.) The case of the petitioner has been presented by Mr.R.S.Sanjanwala, learned Advocate for the petitioners. It is submitted that the approach of the respondents in reading the Scheme as requiring investment of Rs.100 crores or more before a particular point of time or during the operative period of the scheme is not warranted. Inviting attention to various clauses of the Scheme Mr.Sanjanwala submitted that as per definition of 'project cost' status of prestigious unit has to be conferred at the very outset on the basis of projected investment of the unit. That once such status is conferred the unit would be obliged to invest such projected amount or make an investment in excess of Rs.100 crores, but the insistence of the respondents that such investment has to be completed within the operative period of the scheme is not borne out from the provisions of the Scheme. It was further submitted that in the event such an obligation was cast upon the petitioner the Scheme would be rendered meaningless and unworkable. That the petitioner had acted to its detriment on the basis of promise held out by the respondent - State of Gujarat, and in the circumstances, the respondents were obliged to honour their commitment. That it was not the case of the respondents that the petitioners did not fulfill various eligibility criteria set out in the Scheme, and once the petitioner was able to establish that it was eligible unit the relevant clauses of the Scheme had to be liberally construed so as to confer benefit of the Scheme on the petitioner and the interpretation canvassed by the respondent 'State' was not borne out from the provisions of the Scheme.