9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner was allotted a land in the midst of a Special Economic Zone in Sriperumpudur called SIPCOT Hi-Tech SEZ in the year 2008. 4. The petitioner was allotted a total extent of 2 acres of land on 27.03.2008. The petitioner was required to pay a consideration of Rs.80,56,075/- for a lease of 99 years in terms of the aforesaid allotment order dated 27.03.2008. The allotment letter also contemplates several conditions which has been admittedly breached by the petitioner. 5. As per the condition No.6, if it was found that the land allotted to the allottee was not put to use for the purpose for which it was allotted or was in excess of the allottee's actual requirements, SIPCOT could at any time, have the right to cancel the allotment in respect of such land or excess land, as the case may be, and resume the same under TNPPE Act. 6. In that event, the plot cost paid by the allottee would be suitably adjusted and refund if any, would be made as per condition No.2(d) of the allotment letter, interest, enhanced interest, if any already paid, would not be refunded. No compensation was to be paid for improvement or for the buildings or other structures etc., erected at the allotted plo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction, relating to the setting up of the Unit is complete and a chartered engineer's certificate to this effect is submitted by the entrepreneur: [Provided also that the Board of approval may, upon a request in writing by the entrepreneur, and after being satisfied that it is necessary and expedient so to do grant further extension for a further period not exceeding one year, at a time.]" 12. Since the petitioner was unable to commence commercial production, by a letter dated 24.04.2010 to the second respondent, Development Commissioner, the petitioner requested the latter to allow the petitioner to sell the manufactured products to the domestic customers/buyers on payment of applicable excise duty and local levies as applicable to a normal non SEZ industrial unit. 13. In the aforesaid letter, the petitioner also submitted that the construction was in full swing and that the petitioner would be able to commence production within the extended time and that the petitioner was exploring the possibility of not only to commence the production but also to sustain it continuously in an economically viable manner and therefore, proposed the following changes:- i. Change in constituti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent informed the petitioner that de-notification of the unit can be made only by the developer i.e.,the first respondent herein. The second respondent, therefore, requested the petitioner to confirm whether the petitioner was exiting from the SEZ unit and not for de-notification. 19. It was further stated that incase, the petitioner wanted to exist under Rule 74 of the Special Economic Zones, Rules, 2006, the petitioner's application for exit can be considered:- (1) On payment of applicable duties; (2) NOC from the Developer, first respondent. 20. Meanwhile, the petitioner has also had few law and order problem and theft and therefore the petitioner appears to have given a police complaint which culminated in the registration of FIR No.522 of 2015 dated 06.07.2015. 21. A meeting is said to have taken place along with the other allottees in the SEZ in the presence of the first respondent on 21.07.2015. However, the meeting remains unconcluded. 22. Under these circumstances, the first respondent informed that since the petitioner failed to commence construction of the building within six months from the date of the allotment order or complete the construction within 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... la Industrial Area, Bangalore - 560 095. BY ROAD/MAIL Sirs, Sub: Hi-Tech SEZ, Sriperumpudur, Plot No.DV-4/1 measuring 2.00 acres allotted to M/s.Sparrow Television Pvt.Ltd - Non Compliance of terms and conditions of the allotment order/Lease Deed - Cancellation of allotment - Reg. Ref: 1. SIPCOT allotment Order Lr.No.P&SP/SEZ-S/Sparrow/25/2008, dated 27.03.2008. 2. 15 days show cause notice issued on 13.02.2020. 3. Your letter dated 18.02.2020. 4. 90 days notice issued on 11.05.2020. Plot No.DV-4/1 measuring 2.00 acres in Hi-Tech SEZ, Sriperumpudur was allotted to you vide reference 1st cited for setting up an unit for the manufacture of Plastic injection moulded components, wire wound components and Electronic assembly. Lease Deed was executed and registered on 05.09.2018 as Doc.No.13128/2008. The possession of the plot was handed over to you on 05.09.2008. As per condition No.3(viii) of the allotment order and Clause Nos.17 & 18 of the lease deed, "the allottee shall commence the construction of factory buildings within six months, complete the same within 24 months and to commence commercial/trial production within 30 months from the date of Allotment Order". ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.2018 - 3.963 146.921 8 S.O.1584(E) 09.04.2019 - 12.286 133.635 29. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is also entitled for a similar treatment. 30. The respective respondents have filed their counter. It is stated that the lands allotted to the petitioner is in the midst of the SEZ and therefore, the petitioner's application for de-notification of the plot allotted to them cannot be considered. 31. It is submitted that in order to examine the request of the petitioner, a meeting was also called on 21.07.2015 with the petitioner and other members in SEZ Unit to discuss the issue regarding the denotification of the petitioner and the other SEZ Unit. 32. It was informed in the meeting that some of the units who had constructed and commenced production in the land allotted and had availed duty benefit/tax concessions were not interested in de-notifying their land from SEZ unit. 33. The first respondent has further informed the petitioner that without the concurrence of the other allottees for de-notification, it was not feasible to de-notify the land allotted to the petitioner as it affects the contiguity of the SEZ area and that the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed, pursuant to which steps have been taken for possession of the land under the Provisions of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975. 41. The second respondent in its counter has stated that only a developer of the SEZ can request for partial and full de-notification of SEZ Unit and therefore, request of the petitioner seeking for de-notification of the SEZ was contrary to law. 42. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been given a long rope since the time was extended from time to time. Despite the same, the petitioner has not complied with the requirements of the allotment letter. 43. It is further submitted that the de-notification of the unit can be strictly in accordance with the provisions of Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 and the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006. Since, the petitioner is only a unit located within the SEZ, it cannot ask for de-notification of the land as a matter of right. 44. It is further submitted that the second respondent cannot be blamed in processing the application for de-notification in absence of a request from the first respondent. 45. It is further submitted that having not commenced, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in force as on date of such removal and where such date is not ascertainable on the date of payment of duty. 51. Thus, the continuance of the petitioner as a Special Economic Zones (SEZ) Unit supplying to a unit in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) would render the petitioner an unviable unit. If the unit is de-notified, the petitioner will be liable to refund the duty concession availed on the goods that were imported into Special Economic Zones (SEZ) Area i.e., the goods used for constructing the factory and for installing, commencing and erecting of capital goods. The petitioner will have to repay the concession availed in terms of Section 29 read with Section 26(d) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. Section 29 and Section 26(1)(d) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 read as under:- Section 29 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 Section 26(1)(d) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 29. Transfer of ownership and removal of goods.-The transfer of ownership in any goods brought into, or produced or manufactured in, any Unit or Special Economic Zone or removal thereof from such Unit or Zone shall be allowed, subject to such terms and conditions as the Central Go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nditions specified in the Letter of Approval, the Central Government shall notify the identified area as a Special Economic Zone under sub-section (1) of section 4, if the area proposed for notification is not less than the minimum area prescribed under Rule 5." 56. This is evident from a reading of the first proviso to Rule 8 of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006. It reads as under:- "Provided that the Central Government may, on the recommendation of the Board on the application made by the Developer, if it is satisfied, modify, withdraw or rescind the notification of a Special Economic Zone issued under this rule". 57. It is for the first respondent who is the developer of the SIPCOT Hi Tech SEZ, Sriperumbudur, to make an application before the Board of approval for withdrawing or rescinding the notification under second proviso to Rule 8 of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006. The 2nd proviso to Rule 8 reads as under:- "Provided further that the Developer shall submit his application for withdrawal of notification in Form C6 to the concerned Development Commissioner, as specified in Annexure III, who, within a period of fifteen days, shall forward it to the Board wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the first respondent by putting the petitioner to such terms and conditions as may be applicable to the lands located in SIPCOT Hi-Tech SEZ, Sriperumpudur which have been de-notified where the petitioner developed its unit as a SEZ unit in Special Economic Zones (SEZ) developed by the first respondent. Tax and duty concession availed by the petitioner can be directed to be paid back to the authority together with interest, if any, in accordance with applicable law. 65. Further, several notifications have been issued for denotifying an extent of 56.136 Hectares of land in SIPCOT Industrial Area, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram Distict. Under these circumstances, the impugned order dated 29.09.2020 cancelling the allotment of the land in Special Economic Zones (SEZ) to the petitioner by declining the request of the petitioner for de-notifying the petitioner's unit from Special Economic Zones (SEZ) is quashed and the case is remitted back to the first respondent to re-examine the issue afresh in the light of the above observation. Consequently, the steps taken by the third respondent under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
