TMI Blog1980 (7) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merely the interpretation of Notification No. 141 aforementioned, whereas in the other writ applications, which fall for our consideration, both the notifications (Nos. 139 and 141) aforementioned are involved. It may be worthwhile to mention here that so far as C.W.J.C. Nos. 10 and 244 of 1979 (R) are concerned, there is an additional point involved which shall be dealt with while dealing with those cases. Since principles of construction of the notifications in question would be the same affecting either one or all of these cases, I propose to deliver this common judgment dwelling upon the interpretation of the notifications in question and then apply the principle evolved to the facts of each particular case. I, therefore, intend by this common judgment to decide the paramount question of law involved in the first instance and then refer to the relevant facts relating to each case and the reliefs claimed in the case which ought or ought not to be allowed. 2.. This then impels me to go to interpret straightway the true meaning and purport of the notifications in question, namely, S.O. Nos. 139 and 141 both dated 18th January, 1977, as aforementioned. Even so, it would be worthw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... means an industrial unit with an investment up to Rs. 7.5 lakhs on plant and machinery excluding the value of land and building and is approved and registered by Industries Department of Government of Bihar. (2) 'Newly set-up small-scale industrial units' include such units which have already been set up but have not yet completed a period of 5 years from the date of starting production. 2.. This notification shall remain in force from the 19th June, 1969, to the 31st March, 1974." And then we find Notification No. STGL-1023/73 (S.O. 353) dated 14th March, 1974, which was, for all practical purposes, in identical terms and which expressly mentioned that the explanation to this notification of 1974 would be the same as in Notification No. 9926 dated 19th September, 1969. This notification was sought to come into force with effect from 1st April, 1974, and was to remain in force till 31st March, 1979. This exemption, however, was withdrawn by the Government of Bihar with effect from 1st July, 1976, under Notification No. S.O. 1082 dated 30th June, 1976. Then came the notification dated 18th January, 1977, numbered S.O. 141, the relevant portions of which I shall reproduce. her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the contention of Mr. A.K. Sen and Dr. D. Pal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the notification exempting the taxes on sales of the specified raw materials is to remain available for a period of five years from the date the industry starts its production whereas, according to the stand taken by the respondents, the exemption granted under the notification to the owner of any newly set-up small-scale industrial unit can in no case be available to him beyond 31st March, 1979. This is the primary question which falls for out consideration in these cases. 5.. Although the learned counsel for the parties dwelt at some length upon the duty of the court either to have a "literal approach" or a "purposive approach" as was thought to suit either of the contesting parties, this distinction between the literal approach and the purposive approach, as Lord Diplock termed them in the case of Kammins Ltd. v. Zenith Investments Ltd.[1971] A.C. 850 at 881. is of little consequence in construing the notification in question. The more apt and universally accepted principle of construction of such statutes or statutory instruments to be applied in the instant cases is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of start of production, namely, up to 1st July, 1981. Why should the period of exemption granted by the notification for a period of 6 years be cut down in such cases? But then Mr. Ramnandan Sahai Sinha, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, tried to persuade us to whittle down the impact of the period of 5 years by inviting our attention to the fact that the notification was to remain in force only till 31st March, 1979, and, therefore, no exemption under the notification could extend beyond that date. I intend to test the validity of this contention by taking a more extreme case. Say, for example, a small-scale industrial unit Z was set up on 1st January, 1977, and it started production, say, on 2nd January, 1977. Then, according to the contention of the learned Government Pleader, Z will get an exemption not for a period of 5 years from the date of start of production but for a period of 2 years and a little more. Does that not look absurd? Will not such a construction lead to absurd inconvenience and anomalous situation? Let me test in the background of the previous notifications which, I think, in the circumstances of these cases, it shall be legitima ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onted, if at all that expression may be used, us with the question as to what would be the meaning to be given to the last part of the notification which says that it shall remain in force till 31st March, 1979, only. I, for one, wish to retort that this so-called or apparent anomaly which the learned Government Pleader sees in the notification is not an anomaly at all and it can very well be reconciled with the period of exemption for 5 years. Clause 2 of the notification, namely, that it shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 1st July, 1976, and shall remain in force till 31st March, 1979, can, in the circumstances, mean, according to me, only this: that any small-scale industrial unit set up and starting production on and from 1st July, 1976, and up to 31st March, 1979, or such unit as had not completed 5 years from the date of start of production on 1st July, 1976, shall be entitled to the exemption of the taxes concerned for a period of 5 years from the date of start of production. This will lead to no anomaly. This construction will give effect to every word used in the notification. This construction would be in consonance with the fulfilment of the desire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y emphasise this difference between the two notifications by extracting the relevant portion of S.O. 139 here: "S.O. 139.-In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of subsection (3) of section 4 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Bihar Act XIX of 1959), the Governor of Bihar is pleased to exempt from the levy of both 'general sales tax' and 'special sales tax' sales of finished products by newly set-up small-scale industries which have already gone into production prior to 1st July, 1970, at the first stage of sale after production for a period of 5 years from the date the Industry starts its production..." In all other respects for all relevant purposes, the provisions of this notification are mutatis mutandis the same as in Notification No. S.O. 141 dated 18th January, 1977. Even in respect of the historial background culminating in this notification, both the notifications in question stand at par. Even the dates of the earlier notifications in respect of exemption on sales at, first stage are the same as relating to the exemption from levy of purchase tax, etc., on the sales of raw materials to the owners of the newly set-up small-scale industrial units. Following th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner prayed for the issuance of an appropriate certificate of exemption in the prescribed form B under Notification No. S.O. 141. Both the letter and the application in form A have been collectively marked annexure 2/3. This application, it seems, was perhaps received in the office of respondent No. 1 on 31st March, 1977. Respondent No. 1 by his order dated 19th May, 1977, a copy whereof has been marked annexure 3, accepted the position that the petitioner started production on 10th May, 1974. He, however, held that the petitioner's factory had been approved and recognised by the Department of Industries as a small-scale industrial unit on 9th June, 1976, and it had filed the petition for exemption certificate on 31st March, 1977. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to taxexemption certificate with effect from 31st March, 1977, which was the date of filing the petition, till 31st March, 1979. He, however, also held that since the date of start of production was 10th May, 1974, the relief of not collecting the sales tax from the customers and of not depositing the sales tax in the department, which has been enjoyed by the small-scale industrial unit before 1st July, 197 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as a small-scale industrial unit by the Directorate of Industries, Government of Bihar, initially on a temporary basis by an order dated 19th June, 1976, and subsequently on a permanent basis by an order dated 14th September, 1978. The petitioner's factory admittedly started its production on and from 2nd June, 1978. The petitioner applied to the Additional Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Kodarma Special Circle, Jhumriteliya, who was the competent authority, for renewal of its exemption certificate on 28th March, 1979, as the original certificate of exemption in form D was expiring on 31st March, 1979. A copy of this letter has been marked annexure 3. Along with this letter the original certificate of exemption (annexure 2) was also enclosed, the endorsement on which at the left-hand side (top) showed that the exemption was valid till 31st March, 1979. On the application of the petitioner (annexure 3) itself, respondent No. 3 passed an order to the effect that so far the department had not received any Government order with regard to extension of relief of exemption for small-scale industry beyond 31st March, 1979, and, therefore, the question of extension of the exemption ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harged. C.W.J.C. No. 192 of 1979 (R) 12.. In this writ petition the claim of exemption made by the petitioner is under both the notifications, namely, S.O. 141 and S.O. 139. 13.. The petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, the names of the partners having been enumerated in paragraph 1 of the petition. It carries on the business of manufacture and sale of M.S. wire, aluminium wire, wire nail and copper wire. It has its factory for the manufacture of wire and wire nail at Sundernagar, Tatanagar (Jamshedpur). It is a small-scale industrial unit duly registered with the Directorate of Industries of the State Government under a registration certificate dated 12th April, 1977. The production of the said factory started from 23rd June, 1976, which is borne out by the certificate itself, a copy whereof has been marked annexure 1. On 15th April, 1977, the petitioner made an application for exemption certificate under both the notifications in question, which is apparent from the order dated 16th April, 1977, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, respondent No. 1, which is incorporated in annexure 3(a). On the basis of the afor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... guarantee furnished by the petitioner in pursuance of this Court's order dated 30th March, 1979, shall also stand discharged. C.W.J.C. No. 314 of 1979 (R) 16.. In this case also the points involved are identical to those in C.W.J.C. No. 192 of 1979 (R). 17.. The petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, the partner's names having been given in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. It carries on the business of manufacture and sale of ferro-vanadium. It has its factory for the manufacture of the aforesaid material at Ranchi. It is duly registered as a small-scale industrial unit with the Directorate of Industries of the State Government under a registration certificate dated 28th March, 1977, a copy whereof has been marked annexure 1 to the writ petition. From the certificate (annexure 1) itself it appears that the production in the said factory started from 28th April, 1976. By an order dated 14th April, 1977 (annexure 3), passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, respondent No. 1, the petitioner was ordered to be granted exemption only up to 31st March, 1979, both under Notifications Nos. 141 and 139. Pursuant to the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner in form B clearly mentioning that the certificate was valid up to 16th March, 1979. A copy of this certificate has been marked annexure 3 to the writ petition. On 4th December, 1976, however, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, respondent No. 2, issued letter No. 137 to all officers in-charge of circles directing them to restrict the validity of exemption up to the month of March, 1977, only. A copy of the aforesaid letter has been marked annexure 4. In the said letter there is some reference to a circular of the Industries Department on the basis of which this restriction was sought to be imposed. The petitioner was thereafter called upon to produce its exemption certificate in form B (annexure 3), at the top right-hand side of which the certificate was revalidated for the period up to 31st March, 1977, duly signed by the Assistant Commissioner, respondent No. 4, and dated 25th May, 1977. The petitioner has raised a grievance with regard to the legality of the change in the date of the validity of the exemption certificate from 16th March, 1979, to 31st March, 1977, only and has also attacked the letter issued by the Commissioner in so fas as the petitioner's indust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1, recorded that the petitioner was a small-scale industrial unit and was registered as such and that its first production started on 24th July, 1974. The petitioner was, therefore, eligible for grant of exemption. This order is a part of the order sheet (annexure 3). As a result of the aforesaid order, a certificate of exemption from the levy of both general sales tax and special sales tax as well as purchase tax was issued in form B and it was specifically mentioned in the certificate that it would be valid up to 31st March, 1979. A copy of the certificate has been marked annexure 3(a). On 5th September, 1975, the Industrial Development Commissioner, respondent No. 4, issued a circular to the effect that the Government had decided to deprive the industries specified therein from the facilities granted under some resolution dated 29th May, 1973. The special industries included dal mill. It was, however, stated that such industries shall continue to remain registered as small-scale industry but they will not get any facility except assistance from financial institution. On 11th May, 1976, however, a circular was issued by the Industries Department restoring the exemption up to 31s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
