9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncession of Rs. 888.15 lacs given to the petitioner under rule 28C of the Rules has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner did not have the requisite registration with the Department of Industries, which was a condition precedent for grant of benefit by treating the unit to be "unit in pipeline". According to the scheme of the Rules, the industrial units located in specified areas during the specified period, were entitled to concession of deferment of sales tax and conversion thereof to capital subsidy. The case of the petitioner is that its unit was set up in Gurgaon district in collaboration with foreign collaborators for manufacture of automobile components and was registered with the assessing authorities of the Sales Tax D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t date and was not, thus, "unit in pipeline", as per rule 28C(o). When the writ petition earlier came up for hearing, the same was allowed vide order dated December 27, 2007, only on the ground that the benefit once having been given, the same could not be withdrawn by reviewing the earlier order. On appeal of the State of Haryana, the said order was set aside by the honourable Supreme Court with the observation that the question as to which was the registering authority, as contemplated under rule 28C(o) of the Rules and whether filing of IEM with the SIA amounted to registration, was required to be decided. The petitioner was directed to implead the Union of India as party. Accordingly, Union of India has been impleaded as a party and ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rence number is given, that is treated as registration as mentioned in the press note No. 9 (1991 series). Since acknowledgement of memorandum by SIA is treated as registration there appears to be no justification to waive the condition that the unit should be registered with the Department of Industries for determining eligibility of the unit to be in pipeline'. . ." Thus, cancellation of tax concession was not justified. In any case, the HLSC was required to reconsider the matter in the light of stand of the Central Government that the petitioner had applied to the SIA prior to April 30, 2000. The learned counsel for the Union of India submitted that even though IEM acknowledgement was dated August 4, 2000, subsequent to the cutoff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
