LAWS(PAT)-1995-8-40

SUPRABHAT STEEL LIMITED Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On August 09, 1995
SUPRABHAT STEEL LIMITED Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions involves common questions and have, therefore, been heard together and are being disposed of bv this common judgment. Counsel for the parties are agreed that issues involved are identical and in all the three writ petitions the some question arises for consideration by this Court, namely, whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit envisaged under peragraph 10 4 (i) (b) of the Industrial Incentive Policy 1993, announced by the Government of Bihar and published in the official gazette on 16-7-1993. In other words, the sole question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner-Units, which were established before 1st April, 1993, with investments on plant and machinery not exceeding rupees 1500 Crores, and had also come into production before that date, are entitled to the benefit of sales tax exemption on the purchase of raw material for a period of seven years from 1-4-1993. The case of the petitioner is that under paragraph 144 (i) (b) the old industrial units referred to are those which answer the description in that sub-paragraph, but regardless of the date on which they went into production. The industrial policy does not lay down any other condition regarding their having taken benefit of any earlier scheme. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that on a proper appreciation of the said policy it would be apparent that no benefit whatsoever was sought to be extended to such Units which had gone into production before 1st April, 1998, and had taken advantage of the earlier industrial policy It was for this reason that Notification No. SO 95 dated 4-4-1994 and published in the official gazette on the same date was issued by the Commercial Taxes Department laying down a condition that the exemption from payment of tax on purchase of raw materials shall be granted only to those Units which had not availed of any benefit earlier under any industrial policy.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Notification dated 4-4-1994 takes away a small benefit extended to the petitioner-Units, which could not be done unless there was a change of Government policy. The language of paragraph 10 4 (i) (b) is clear and categoric and, therefore, the notification issued on 4-4-1994, to the extent it imposes such a condition must be quashed, as unwarranted and illegal, being contrary to the policy itself,

(3.) Counsel for the parties have made their submissions by reference to the facts stated in C. W. J. C. No. 7063 of 1994; and I shall, therefore, take representative facts from that petition.