TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ption for six years or for four years”. That question was wide enough to consider all the relevant facts and decide the case. The High Court has failed to take into account the relevant facts in this matter. Nor has the High Court adverted to the relevant provisions in law. The High Court has chosen to refer to a provision of law which came into force much later than the relevant date, which ought not to have been done. - Civil Appeal No. 3850 of 1996, - - - Dated:- 2-2-1999 - SRINIVASAN M. AND BANERJEE U.C. JJ. Avadh Behari Rohtagi, Senior Advocate and R.B. Mishra (Sunil Kumar) Advocate (NP), Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Dr. Meera Aggarwal and Ramesh Chandra Mishra, Advocates, for the appearing parties. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Dr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod of four years from November 1, 1985. The reasoning of the second respondent was that the appellant had on its own showing commenced trial run, purchased raw material and started production in November, 1985 and the first sale was effected on November 1, 1985. At that time, as the appellant had not invested amounts in excess of Rs. 3 lakhs, the appellant was entitled to exemption only for a period of four years from the date of first sale, namely, November 1, 1985. On that basis, the claim of the appellant for exemption for six years from March 5, 1986 was rejected. 4.. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed civil miscellaneous writ petition in the High Court. That writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. 5.. We are very so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eral of Technical Development or the Government of India; and (a) registered under the Factories Act, 1948 or established after obtaining a term loan from the U.P. Financial Corporation or from a scheduled commercial bank, in the case of units with a capital investment not exceeding three lakh rupees; or (b) registered under the Factories Act, 1948 or having applied for registration under the said Act and deposited the required fee for the purpose, in the case of units other than those referred to above; 7.. The date of starting production has also been defined in the notification as follows: Date of starting production and new unit shall have the meaning assigned to them in the explanation to section 4-A of the Uttar Prades ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hased for the first time or the date of installation of power connection, where needed, whichever is later. 10.. There is a fallacy in this contention. The date of starting production as defined in that explanation would be relevant only if the unit applying for exemption is an industrial unit within the meaning of the notification. As already pointed out by us, the appellant became an industrial unit as defined by the notification only from September 11, 1986. Hence the relevant date will be only March 5, 1986 and not November 1, 1985. 11.. Learned counsel for the respondents also contends that none of the contentions urged by the appellant in this Court were put forward before the High Court. We are unable to accept this contention. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
