TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e manufacture of paper. The date of production is December 6, 1982. The unit was registered under the Factories Act on February 18, 1983. The first purchase of the raw material is dated November 4, 1982 and the date of first sale is February 22, 1983. The petitioner has also obtained licence under the Central Excise Act, which is dated December 3, 1982. The State Government by Government Order No. 8244 dated September 30, 1982 floated a scheme for sales tax exemption to new units set up in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner filed an application under section 4-A of the Act for exemption. The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ghaziabad recommended to the Sales Tax Officer, Sector I, Ghaziabad that the petitioner is entitle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e taking a decision, the committee shall give opportunity to a representative of the petitioner to place its version before it. 3.. The petitioner, in pursuance of the aforesaid judgment approached the Divisional Level Committee and explained the discrepancies regarding electric connection and regarding purchase of the raw material by means of a representation. It has further been stated in paragraph 35 of the writ petition that the Divisional Level Committee after the above representation neither required any documents to be produced before it nor ever asked the petitioner to file any documents, etc. 4.. Subsequently the petitioner was served with an order dated January 19, 1988 passed by the Additional Director of Industries, Conven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved Mudassir reply of paragraphs 32 to 62 of the writ petition has been given in paragraph 4. In the said paragraph it has been mentioned that the contents of paragraphs 32 to 62 of the writ petition are not admitted. It deals with other paragraphs of the writ petition but there is no specific denial of the fact that the review application was rejected by the Divisional Level Committee on new and additional grounds. Further there is no denial of the allegation that before passing the impugned order the petitioner was never called upon by way of show cause notice or otherwise to explain about its stand to the proposed new grounds. The petitioner was taken aback when it received the impugned order. The Divisional Level Committee, at no point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the machinery must be new. This Court in the case of Taas Printing Inks Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. 1987 UPTC 410 has held that old machinery purchased from out of Uttar Pradesh prior to October 12, 1983 will not disentitle the unit to the grant of exemption. In view of the fact that the sheet-cutter machine was purchased on January 13, 1983 from Delhi, may be new or old, will not make any difference in the present case. 9.. The second objection taken by the Divisional Level Committee for rejecting the application is that the investment being more than Rs. 3,00,000 the unit was required to be registered under the Factories Act. The petitioner has filed only a receipt of payment of fees for registration, but has not produced the regis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner is based upon the Government's decision. It has been held in Raghunatyh Laxminarain Spices Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. 2000 UPTC 554, Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Indra Industries [2001] 122 STC 100 (SC); 2000 UPTC 472 and Collector of Central Excise v. Dhiren Chemical Industries [2002] 126 STC 122 (SC); (2002) 2 SCC 127 that a circular is binding on the departmental authorities. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment of this Court reported in 1991 UPTC 195 (Chandra Helican Pumps Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Director, Industries) that the Divisional Level Committee cannot reject a review application on the new or additional grounds without affording an opportunity of hearing. 10.. The third objection for rejecting the exemption appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rchased for the first time on November 4, 1982 for commercial production and that that date should have been taken as the date of first purchase of raw material for the purposes of grant of exemption under section 4-A of the Act. As stated above, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Ramesh Chand Glass Works 1995 UPTC 369 the actual date of starting production has to be seen. In the present case the actual date of starting production was November 1, 1982. The artificial definition of the date of starting production shall not be applicable. In view of this, the fourth and fifth objections raised in the impugned order are also not sustainable in the eyes of law. 12.. We have considered each objection raised by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
