TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. So also in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Bombay v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City - III, Bombay, [ 1992 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT ], it was held that provision granting incentive for promoting economic growth and development in taxing statutes should be liberally construed and restriction placed on it by way of exception should be construed in a reasonable and purposive manner so as to advance the objective of the provision. The object of granting exemption from payment of sales tax has always been for encouraging capital investment and establishment of industrial units for the purpose of increasing production of goods and promoting the development of industry in the State - the Eligibility Notification lay down conditions for seeking benefit of Exemption Notification, which have to be fulfilled and are mandatory in nature and have to be strictly complied with by the dealer if he wishes to claim exemption. In case any of the conditions are not fulfilled, same would dis-entitle the dealer from being granted benefit under the said notification. Thus, in view of the facts of the present case, it is noticed that even though the land did not belong to the Promotor/Director of the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es Pvt. Ltd. wherein it has been specifically held that the ownership of the land in the name of the Promotor Director can be considered to be the land of the unit and the grant of eligibility certificate can not be refused. ii) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in not considering the fact that the final registration with the Industries Department was in continuation of the provisional registration granted in 1996 and 2001. iii) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in twisting the fact of the case and without proper appreciation of fact has recorded the perverse finding which has vitiated the law. iv) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the plot no.F-63 allotted in favour of Ajay Kumar Gupta Promotor Director in 1994 will not be deemed to be the plot of the unit until it is registered in the name of unit. v) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the registration of the plot in the name of unit and the amendment in the registration certificate of the Industries Department are the material dates and as such the applicant is not entitled to exemption under Section 4-A of the Act in view of notification no. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he UPSIDC ) and subsequently it was is said to have been transferred to the revisionist by means of an agreement to sell dated 25/11/99. The UPSIDC granted permission to Sri Ajit Kumar Gupta to transfer the plot number F 63 by means of its letter dated 17/12/2001 In favour of the revisionist and it was subsequently registered with the Industries Department on 25/03/2002. 6.The above facts were considered by the Tribunal and while dismissing the appeal, recorded a finding that Sri Ajay Kumar Gupta could not have transferred the said land in favour of the revisionist prior to 17.12.2001 as the lease agreement clearly stipulated In clause 4(j) that licensee will not directly or indirectly transfer, assign, sale, encumber or part with his interest under or benefit of this agreement or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever without the previous consent in writing of the grantor and it shall be open for the grantor to refuse such consent or grant the same subject to such conditions and may be laid down by the grantor in that behalf 7.The Tribunal was of the considered view that in light of the aforesaid restrictions the land could not have been transferred in favour of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00 but no later than December 31, 2001, no tax shall be payable, or as the case may be, the tax shall be payable at the reduced rate, by the manufacturer thereof on the turnover of sales of such goods from the date of first sale or the date following the expiration of six months from the date of starting production whichever is earlier. (b) in respect of any goods manufactured in a unit which has undertaken expansion and the date of production in excess of the base production falls on or before March 31, 2000, no tax shall be payable, or as the case may be, the tax shall be payable at the reduced rate, by the manufacturer thereof on the turnover of sales of the quantity of goods manufactured in excess of the base production. (c) in respect of any goods manufactured in a unit which has undertaken diversification and the date of production of goods of a nature different from those manufactured earlier by such units falls on or before March 31, 2000, no tax shall be payable, or as the case may be, the tax shall be payable at the reduced rate by the manufacturer thereof on the turnover of sales of goods, which are of a nature different from those, manufactured by the unit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntinued production of such goods for a period exceeding six months at a stretch in any assessment year. 11. Sri Pradeep Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the provision of the exemption notification deserve liberal consideration and the revisionist was validly transferred the land, which was already alloted to its Director-Promotor and there is no illegality in the same. He relied on the agreement to sell and submitted that the plot was transferred prior to the cut off date prescribed in the exemption notification, and hence he fulfilled all the conditions as laid down in the said notification. With regard to the old machinery, it was submitted that the same was not used in the manufacturing process and hence has assailed the findings recorded by the authority below and urged this Court to set aside the judgment of the Tribunal. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue has supported the findings recorded by the authorities below and prayed that the revision deserves to be dismissed. 13. Considering the above submissions, it is necessary to interpret the exemption notification and to analyze its provisions in order to determine as to whet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... new unit after March 31, 1990 means a factory or workshop set up by a dealer after such date and satisfying the conditions laid down under this Act or Rules or Notifications made thereunder with regard to such factory or workshop and includes an industrial unit manufacturing the same goods at any other place in the State or an industrial unit manufacturing any other goods on, or adjacent to the site of an existing factory or workshop but does not include. 15. The above definition provides that only those units which fulfil the conditions laid down in the notifications issued under the Act or Rules are said to be new units and eligible for exemption under section 4A of the Act. Thus, fulfilment of conditions mentioned in the notifications is mandatory and to be strictly complied with. 16. In the case of Novopan India Ltd., Hyderabad v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Hyderabad reported in 1994 Supp (3) SCC 606, apex court held as follows: 16. We are, however, of the opinion that, On principle, the decision of this court in Mangalore Chemicals, [1991] 83 STC 234 (SC); 1992 Supp (1) SCC 21 and in Union of India v. Wood Papers Ltd., [1991] 83 STC 251 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be fulfilled and, therefore, the exemption has rightly been refused: In the circumstances, no interference is called for. 20. In the result, revision fails and is accordingly, dismissed. 16.Considering the aforesaid judgments with regard to the manner of interpretation of the Exemption Notification, it is noticed that the Eligibility Notification lay down conditions for seeking benefit of Exemption Notification, which have to be fulfilled and are mandatory in nature and have to be strictly complied with by the dealer if he wishes to claim exemption. In case any of the conditions are not fulfilled, same would dis-entitle the dealer from being granted benefit under the said notification. 17.Applying the aforesaid to the facts of the present case, it is noticed that even though the land did not belong to the Promotor/Director of the revisionist firm, but the same was sought to be transferred to the revisionist and that transfer can be said to have been completed on 17.01.2001, when UPSIDC directed for transfer of plot no. F-63 in favour of the revisionist firm. It cannot be said that prior to 17.01.2001, the land was transferred in favour of the revisionist. The va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
