TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present case the petitioner, would be of preferring an appeal before the learned Tribunal under rule 6 of the Scheme of 1989. With reference to the letter dated December 1, 2006, and the admitted case of the petitioner is that the said review application filed on December 13, 2000 was not decided and the prayer made is also for seeking a mandamus that the said review dated December 13, 2000 is deemed to have been decided as allowed. A reading of clause (ii) and the proviso does not show that there is any mention of deemed acceptance or refusal. even assuming that the petitioner had filed the review application on December 13, 2000, after the lapse of 180 days the reviewing authority would have no jurisdiction to decide the same. There is no specific provision for deemed acceptance and in absence of any such provision this prayer cannot be allowed. The alternate prayer of remand too cannot be accepted as the outer-limit of the 180 days period allowed too has long expired. As far as the other reliefs claimed regarding challenge to the orders dated October 21, 2000 and November 20, 2000, the petitioner has remedy of preferring appeal under para 6 of the Scheme of 1989 before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner-company after filing of the present writ petition, the same be taken on record and be quashed and set aside; (vi) any other order or direction which this honourable court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents ; and (vii) award cost of this writ petition to the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents, an application has been filed for vacation of interim order dated July 1, 2008 and for disposing of the writ petition as having become infructuous in view of the subsequent order passed by the respondents on April 29, 2011, by which the petitioner has been communicated that the decision with reference to his alleged review petition dated December 13, 2000. The order dated April 29, 2011 reads as follows: When the matter came up for admission on May 23, 2008, the respondents appeared through Additional Advocate-General who was directed to accept notices on behalf of the respondents. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on several occasions with the court recording that the earlier understanding between the parties shall continue. . . . This apparently was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the court today in this background. The controversy, as would be seen from the prayers made in the writ petition, revolves around the question-whether in fact any review application dated December 13, 2000 was filed by the petitioner and whether pending such review application, it is open for the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in pursuance of the orders dated October 21, 2000 and November 20, 2000. The petitioner has placed on record annexure 12, alleged copy of the review application sought to have been filed on December 13, 2000 against the orders dated October 21, 2000 and November 20, 2000. This is contested by the respondents and they denied that any such review application was filed by the petitioner. The respondents sent a communication (annexure 13) on February 8, 2007 wherein in response to the letter of the petitioner dated December 1, 2006, the respondent stated as follows: On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Gupta that a reading of the letter (annexure 13) clearly goes to show that the respondents do not dispute that they had not received the copy of the review application and all that they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appropriate authority in view of the fact that no decision had been taken on the so-called review application. Since the SLSC had already reviewed the matter of EFCI not once but twice and that too after giving a reasoned order well supported by the conclusions and basis thereof, the petitioner if aggrieved, was left with only option to approach the appellate authority, i.e., the Rajasthan Tax Board. From the above reply it has been pointed out that the application dated December 13, 2000 (annexure 12) had been addressed to the Secretary Industry and in case it was purported to be a review application, it ought to have been addressed to Commissioner/Member Secretary, State Level Screening Committee. It was also pointed out that so far as the order dated November 20, 2000 is concerned, the petitioner has an alternative remedy under the Scheme under para 6 thereof of preferring an appeal. Similarly, objections were also raised in the preliminary reply filed on June 3, 2008 which is available at page 265 of the paper book more particularly paras 2 and 3 of the preliminary reply wherein even the receipt of the application dated December 13, 2000 was specifically disputed and it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a period of 90 days from the date of receipt thereof: Provided that where the appropriate Screening Committee is not able to dispose of the application within the aforesaid period, the Chairman of the appropriate Screening Committee, may for sufficient cause, to be recorded into writing, extend the period or periods but not exceeding 90 days in aggregate. (iii) The appropriate screening committee, may after making or causing to be made such enquiry as it considers necessary and after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the industrial unit, the assessing authority and Commissioner or any officer authorised by him in this behalf, pass such orders thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order confirming, amending, suspending or cancelling the order or reopening the case and directing for fresh decision of the case. The perusal of the above provisions and more particularly clause (ii) and the proviso to clause (ii) of para 5A of the Scheme of 1989 quoted hereinabove, go to show that whether or not any review application, as claimed by the petitioner, was filed on December 13, 2000 or assuming in favour of the petitioner that if any such appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
