COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER Vs. SANKESHWAR METALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions arise out of a common order and hence are heard and decided together.

(2.) THE respondent in Writ Petition No. 3002 M/s Sankeshwar Metals and another established new Industrial Unit and commenced commercial production on 1. 1. 86 and respondent M/s Shri Suparshwa Tube in writ petition No. 3008/99 commenced commercial production of its new industrial unit on 1. 5. 1986. Both of them were entitled to certain concessions under the 1985 Dispensation under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. However, the State Government had introduced an Incentive Scheme known as Rajasthan Sales Tax Incentive Scheme 1987 on 23. 5. 87 which permitted new Industrial Units under 1985 Dispensation to opt for availing benefit of Incentive Scheme, 1987 provided they make their option known to the competent Authority within 60 days of the commencement of the scheme initially. THE period was extended to 150 days. However, both the units did not exercise their option within time allowed under the 1987 Scheme, but they applied to avail the benefit of Incentive Scheme 1987 on 28. 1. 88. Those applications were not entertained by the Dist. Level Screening Committee as the exercise of option was delayed and 1987 Scheme did not contain any provision empowering the Dist. Level Screening Committee to entertain the application beyond limitation. THEreafter with effect from 6. 07. 1989, Rajasthan Sales Tax (New) Incentive Scheme, 1989 was introduced. Clause 1 which describes operative field of the Scheme envisages that 1989 Scheme shall be deemed to have come into operation with effect from 5. 3. 1987 and shall remain in force until 12. 3. 97 which has been extended from time to time.

(3.) MR. Eklavya Bhansali on the other hand has contended that the case of the dealers is governed by sub Clause (C) of Clause 1 which is not inhibited by exclusion of new unit covered under the 1985 dispensation. Both the clauses operate in different field and, therefore, there was no impediment before the Dist. Level Screening Committee to have considered the application of the two dealers in question which has been rejected under 1987 scheme solely on the ground of limitation.