TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stice. HELD THAT:- Claim of the petitioner for benefit of the incentive in question under the Industrial Promotion Scheme, 2010 relating to quarter ending June 30th, 2012 against which this Writ Petition was filed in 2019 was denied admittedly for the non-fulfilment or failure on the part of the petitioner in filing such claim as per norms of the incentive scheme in question by which it had to file the same online within specified time by taking the alleged ground of technical glitches in its internet system which could not be substantiated by the petitioner by any material evidence and whether there was any glitches in the internet connection of the petitioner or not at the relevant point of time in 2012 is a question of fact and matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n February, 2019 against such grievence. Case according to the petitioner in brief are as hereunder: Primary issue in the writ petition is whether Respondent No. 6 being empowered under the Industrial Promotional Scheme, 2010 introduced vide Notification No. 483-F.T. dated 31/03/2010 (hereinafter, referred to as the Scheme ), arbitrarily rejecting petitioner s application under the said Scheme for the Quarter Ending (Q.E.) June, 2012 and the only reason by memo dated 30/06/2016 is that the application had not been filed online. Petitioner submits that the intention of legislator to introduce the aforesaid Scheme was to provide financial assistance to specified dealers for expansion of their capacities, modernization and improving mar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner by its reply dated 01/06/2016, had explained the reasons for the delay in filing the said application. Petitioner further informed Respondent No. 6 that the State authorities had already granted them additional time of 15 days to file their returns due to the aforesaid technical glitch and again on 16/06/2016 petitioner repeatedly informed reasons for delay and prayed to condone the same. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent No. 6 has not considered the reasons cited by the petitioner for the delay in filing the application and has arbitrarily exercised its discretion under Clause 4 of the Scheme in order to reject the application as non-deserving without considering the explanation of the petitioner. Petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zemag India Pvt. Ltd. Ors. Learned Advocate appearing for the State respondents opposing the Writ Petition submits as hereunder. Respondents submit that the Petitioner already had a period of extra 4 months to upload its return which it failed due to alleged internet breakdown according to it. This fact has no corroborative evidence. Petitioner later even could have prayed for filing it electronically. Petitioner could have attempted to file electronically even thereafter if it had failed it could have made a representation to the authorities for extension of time for permitting it to file or for accommodation and had such representations remained unanswered or the demand of the petitioner was not met with in that event petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch indulgence is shown to the petitioner now it will open up a sluice gate for litigations when similar type of persons who have slept over their respective rights and missed the bus for incentive and approach the court later all have to be considered. Respondents further submitted that beneficial legislation or provisions granting exemption from payment of tax should be strictly interpreted and when law says that a particular thing has to be done in a particular manner the said thing has to be done in such manner and in no other manner. Respondents submit that it is not the case of the petitioner that it has been discriminated against and it has never stated that others under similar circumstances have been permitted and ultimately ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in compliance of such terms and conditions including time and manner of making such application under the said incentive scheme Writ Court cannot alter or modify the terms and conditions of the said scheme in a way which is suitable to the petitioner and if in case of the petitioner such terms and conditions of a Government scheme is directed to be waived and allowed such benefit in spite of its failure to comply with the conditions of the said scheme after 10 years it will open a flood gate of litigations for those who are under the similar circumstances, moreso when the said scheme is not in existence at present and it is matter of record that in this case petitioner after simply writing few letters in 2012 waited for four years, i.e. til ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
