BEEKAY STEEL LIMITED Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) BOTH the cases involve common questions of fact and law and thus they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner in short is as follows : In the year 1995, the State of Bihar with a view to promote industries in the State, assured the entrepreneurs to give all possible help. For this purpose a single window system was started. An industrial policy was announced granting various incentives including the sales tax exemptions. The said Industrial Policy, 1995 was made operative from September 1, 1995 to August 31, 2000. The petitioner and other entrepreneurs who proposed to invest to set up new industrial projects in Bihar were invited in a meeting. Pursuant to the said policy, the State Government, inter alia, issued two notifications being S. O. Nos. 478 and 479 both dated December 22, 1995 in exercise of its power under section 7 (3) (b) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 granting exemption from payment of sales tax on purchase of raw materials and on sale of finished goods respectively to new industrial units which satisfied the terms and conditions, for ten years and eight years from the date of production depending upon their respective locations in the specified categories. The petitioner decided to set up a new industrial units and made huge investment of more than 22 crores of rupees in land, building, plant and machinery The petitioner's industry fall under the thrust industry and is a medium scale industrial unit. A licence was obtained from Government of India, Ministry of Industries on October 18, 1995. The petitioner applied for sanction of electricity on October 4, 1995. Ultimately on May 15, 1998 an agreement was entered into with the Electricity Board for commencement of the electricity supply and the petitioner deposited the security amount but the electricity could not be supplied to the petitioner till December 22, 2000 due to negligence and/or inaction on the part of the Electricity Board. As the plant was lying idle for about two years, the petitioner could start production only on July 19, 2001. In the meantime, Industrial Policy, 1995 expired on August 31, 2000 but before expiry, the State Government issued two Notifications being S. O. Nos. 57 and 58, both dated March 2, 2000 amending the earlier notifications dated December 22, 1995. By this amendment, the benefits were extended to those new industrial units also who are granted a prior permission before the expiry of the policy, i. e. , August 31, 2000 but starts production within five years from the issue of such permission. As soon as the petitioner knew about the aforesaid notifications dated March 2, 2000, it requested the Industries Department to issue Certificate/prior permission by letters dated June 21, 2000, July 21, 2000 and August 2, 2000 but the petitioner did not get any response to the said requests. The petitioner then applied for grant of exemption certificate under the said notifications. An inspection was made by the commercial taxes officials, who recommended the grant of exemption to the petitioner on May 31, 2002. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes refused to further recommend the case of the petitioner by his order dated November 22, 2002, solely on the ground that there was no prior permission in terms of the said notifications, though he found the unit of the petitioner otherwise eligible for exemption. The petitioner was served with a notice dated November 23, 2002 issued by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration) affording an opportunity of hearing about the said order dated November 22, 2002 rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of exemption certificate. After hearing the petitioner, the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Administration) by order dated February 19, 2003 directed the Circle in-charge, to hold a thorough enquiry and send a clear report for further action. The petitioner further submitted that the authorities of the sales tax department are not taking any final decision and the matter is being passed on by one authority to another. The matter was adjourned on thirty occasions between September 29, 2001 to May 7, 2003. Ultimately, on May 7, 2003 the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes stayed the hearing on the ground of pendency of the present writ petition.