9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithout getting it registered under the Factories Act or before the Directorate of Industries. It got a sales tax registration certificate on November 23, 1985. Earlier it had purchased raw material and started trial run pursuant to which the first sale was effected on November 1, 1985. 2.. The appellant, however, purchased land and building and started manufacturing unit on a property of its own and at that time it applied for and obtained permanent registration from the Deputy Director of Industries as small- scale unit. The actual registration certificate was issued on September 11, 1986 by the Deputy Director of Industries. That unit started production on March 3, 1986 and the first sale was effected on March 5, 1986. The appellant had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by which the "date of production" was defined. But, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, that definition was introduced for the first time by Amendment Act No. 28 of 1991 which came into force long after the relevant date in the present case. By utilising that definition and the last part of the reasoning found in the order of the second respondent, the High Court took the view that the appellant had started production as required by the notification on November 1, 1985 with a capital investment below Rs. 3 lakhs and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to exemption for a period of four years only from November 1, 1985. 6.. Unfortunately, the High Court has overlooked the definition of "industrial unit" found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trial unit had commenced production only on March 3, 1986 and the first sale was effected by that unit on March 5, 1986. Hence, the relevant date for the purpose of granting exemption is March 5, 1986 and not November 1, 1985 as decided by the second respondent and the High Court. That industrial unit had a capital investment of much more than Rs. 3 lakhs. Consequently, the industrial unit is entitled to get exemption for a period of six years from March 5, 1986 provided the other conditions are satisfied. There is no dispute in this case that all the other conditions are satisfied and the appellant is entitled to get exemption under the relevant notification. 9.. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the appellant purchased ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court has not dealt with any of them. On the other hand, the High Court has framed only one question for determination as to "whether the petitioner before it was entitled to exemption 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. 12.. In the result, we have no hesitation to set aside the judgment of the High Court and allow this appeal with costs. Appeal allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
