CENTURY YARN Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of order dated September 4, 2002 passed by the State Appellate Forum, Bhopal (annexure "o") and order dated December 29, 2000 passed by the State Level Committee, Indore (annexure "r-1") and also for quashment of demand notices (annexures "e-1", "f-2" and "l") and also for a direction to respondents Nos. 3 to 5 to issue an eligibility certificate to the petitioner for the period from March 25, 1994 to March 24, 2003 for grant of exemption.

(2.) PETITIONER-COMPANY has set up a factory at Village Satrati, District Khargone, which has been alleged to be a backward district. The finished products of the petitioner are cotton yarn and blended yarn. The production of the unit had commenced from March 25, 1994. The respondent No. 3, State Level Committee, in its meeting held on September 27, 1995 resolved to give to the petitioner exemption from payment of sales tax for a period of five years from March 25, 1994 to March 24, 1999 under Notification F. No. A3-41-81 (35)-ST-V dated October 23, 1981 read with Notification No. A-3-1-92-ST-V (57) dated March 31, 1992. Again the State Level Committee in its meeting dated October 29, 1997 took another decision to extend this facility for exemption for a period of nine years from March 25, 1994 to March 24, 2003 to the petitioner being a pioneer industry. The said resolution was communicated by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner under letter dated December 22, 1997. On January 9, 1998, Joint Director of Industries addressed a letter to the petitioner to furnish an agreement in the prescribed format and on July 13, 1998 the agreement was executed by the petitioner in favour of the Joint Director of Industries. In pursuance of the aforesaid resolution the eligibility certificate was to be issued to the petitioner but the same could not be issued despite various letters of request by the petitioner-company to the various authorities. Thereafter, petitioner filed a writ petition which was registered as Writ Petition No. 1098 of 2000. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated August 25, 2000 with a direction to the respondents to take decision in the matter particularly with reference to the decision of the State Level Committee vide annexure-"p/8" on the said letters of the petitioners at the earliest, say within two months from the date of communication of the copy of the order issued in Writ Petition No. 1098 of 2000. Thereafter, petitioner-company wrote a letter dated October 10, 2000 to the respondents for the compliance of the orders passed by the High Court. Thereafter, the State Level Committee passed another resolution dated December 29, 2000 stating therein that the petitioner's industry is not a pioneer industry within the definition of Subsidy Rules, 1989 and, therefore, petitioner-company is not entitled for issue of any eligibility certificate. Copy of this resolution is annexure "r-1". Thereafter the petitioner filed a contempt petition on January 9, 2001 and the notices were directed to be issued and by order dated November 23, 2001 this Court disposed of the aforesaid contempt petition. In the meantime respondent No. 1 issued demand notices dated February 15, 2001 (annexure "e") ; February 14, 2001 (annexure "e-1") ; February 15, 2001 (annexures "f" and "f-1") against which the petitioner filed this petition, challenging the aforesaid action. Thereafter notice under Section 146 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 dated March 21, 2001 (annexure "l") was issued and the petition was amended.

(3.) IN reply the respondents have taken a defence that vide resolution dated December 29, 2000 (annexure "r-1") the State Level Committee after considering the directions issued by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1098 of 2000 dated August 25, 2000 has taken a decision that the petitioner-company is not covered within the definition of "pioneer industry" as has been defined in the Subsidy Rules, 1989 and is not set-up within the growth centre. Therefore, the petitioner-company is not entitled for any eligibility certificate and this decision of the State Level Committee (annexure "r-1") is perfectly legal, justified and, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition.