Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 63 (UTT)

Uttaranchal Forgings Insutry v. The Secretary

2005-03-03

PRAFULLA C.PANT, V.S.SIRPURKAR

body2005
JUDGMENT Per Hon'ble the Chief Justice.-Heard Mr. VK. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. I.P. Kohli. Advocate appearing for the petitioner in writ petition No. 181 of 2005 (M/B), Mr. P.R. Mullick, Advocate appearing for the petitioners in rest of the writ petitions, Mr. Sudhanshu Dhulia, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate appearing for the State Industrial Development Corporation of Uttaranchal Limited (hereafter referred to as SIDCUL), Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Standing Counsel (Central Govt.) and Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, Standing Counsel for the State. 2. This judgment shall cover all the above-mentioned writ petitions. All the petitioners are the industrial units, admittedly, operating in the State of Uttaranchal. All the units are either in the industrial estates or in the spot zone industrial areas. It seems that with a view to give a fillip to the industrialization of the State of Uttaranchal the Central Government floated few schemes giving tax holidays and or subsidies to such industries. The tax holidays were in respect of the Central Excise, Income Tax, and State Investments subsidies were also provided for. 3. It so happened that this was to be done on the basis of the recommendation of the State Government and the SIDCUL. Accordingly, it seems that the State Government supplied, in consultation with SIDCUL, certain khasra numbers and certain sites recognizing the rights of those industries to be included for the benefits of the Central Government schemes. The petitioners' case is, however, that their industries, which when either the existing industries or the industries, which were being developed were left out by mistake. It is commonly understood that the recommendations are made on the basis of the reports of the District Industrial Officer to SIDCUL and the recommendations, then, were forwarded to the Central Government for including the concerned industries in the benefit zone of the schemes. 4. The case of the petitioners is that their khasra numbers or as the case may be, the khasra numbers on which these industries were operating were left out by mistake. Their case is that some absurdities have crept in the matter, in as much as while a neighbouring industry got the benefit of the scheme their industries which were very much in the vicinity; were left out. It seems that the State Government has taken a step vide its communication dated 20.09.2004. Their case is that some absurdities have crept in the matter, in as much as while a neighbouring industry got the benefit of the scheme their industries which were very much in the vicinity; were left out. It seems that the State Government has taken a step vide its communication dated 20.09.2004. wherein this situation has been brought to the notice of the Central Government. For the sake of convenience, we will quote the letter in full : "To . Shri S. Jagadeesan, IAS Joint Secretary, Ministry of Commerce & Industry Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi. Sub : Correction/Amendment in the excise notification No. 50 dated 10.06.04 issued by Govt. of India for the State of Uttaranchal. Dear Sir. 1. You are aware that certain khasra numbers were left in the aforesaid notification either in existing Industries Estates or Industrial activities in non-Industrial Estates. When the said corrections were sent to Gal vide letter No. 707 dated 29.06.2004 for notification of amended list of khasra numbers, it was advised by DIPP, Govt. of India to check up thoroughly the corrections at the level of GOU and furnish a consolidated list of such corrections. In compliance to the instructions of Gal, the corrections required to he done have been rechecked and complied in the following two categories :- (i) Existing industrial Estates/Areas. (ii) Industrial activities in non-industrial areas. 2. Further, some private Industrial Estates in joint sector with SIDCUL are also being developed by the entrepreneurs, some of which have already been notified, whereas some arc in the process of notification. Khasra numbers of such private Industrial Estates are being annexed as category 'E' for their notification. 3. The above corrections/additions have been signed by the competent officer of the State. 4. You are requested to issue the Notification for the enclosed list of khasra numbers with necessary corrections as indicated therein. Thanking you. Yours faithfully Sd/(Sanjeev Chopra) Secretary (ID)" 5. The letter seems to have been sent by the Secretary, Industries, Uttaranchal to the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi. We have, deliberately, quoted the letter so as to highlight the grievance of the petitioners industries and it is seen that the SIDCUL as well as the State Government arc also in agreement with the petitioners industries that they were left out by mistake or erroneously, as the case may be. We have, deliberately, quoted the letter so as to highlight the grievance of the petitioners industries and it is seen that the SIDCUL as well as the State Government arc also in agreement with the petitioners industries that they were left out by mistake or erroneously, as the case may be. All the industrial units covered in the above-mentioned writ petitions have, therefore, come up before us praying for a writ against the respondent No. 1 i.e. the Central Government for including the khasra numbers, on which, the petitioners arc operating their industries in the benefit of the scheme and eventually to allow the fiscal incentives to the petitioners units. 6. We had issued the notice to the Central Government after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners in extensio. Mr. P.R. Mullick, Advocate and Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate were extensively heard on the issue. We have also heard Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Standing Counsel for the Central Government. Today, during the debate, Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Standing Counsel points out on the basis of the instructions received by him from the Central Government that it was the sole responsibility of the State Government to identify the locations and that was to be done with the aim of promoting the industrialization in the State. In this, the State Government was also to consider the nature and the class of the industry to be promoted and was also to take into consideration the other factors such as environment etc. He points out that the Central Government had granted these benefits and incentives only to the industries premises or locations communicated by the State Government. He further points out that it is the stance of the .Central Government that these incentives were conceived by the Central Government with the sole objective of the promotion of industries in the newly created State of Uttaranchal. 7. According to Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Standing Counsel the Notification issued by the Department of Revenue was made applicable to the premises or locations identified and or communicated by the State Government. It is, then, pointed out by him that the khasra numbers or the locations, where the petitioners industries are operating, were not covered under the list submitted by the State Government and therefore, these were not notified. This Notification is bearing No. 49/2003-CE and 50/2003-CE. 8. Mr. It is, then, pointed out by him that the khasra numbers or the locations, where the petitioners industries are operating, were not covered under the list submitted by the State Government and therefore, these were not notified. This Notification is bearing No. 49/2003-CE and 50/2003-CE. 8. Mr. P.R. Mullick, Advocate says that besides these Notifications, which provide for the incentives for the Central Excise, there arc also identifical Notifications for giving incentives in the matter of payment of Income Tex also. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, learned Standing Counsel, however, very fairly points out that the Central Government had not, deliberately, left out from the said exemption notification, the khasra numbers or the locations covered by the petitioners. They were left out probably because the State Government had not intimated in respect of those industrial units. 9. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Standing Counsel points out that, however, the Central Government has taken a stance that it is a policy matter to include certain khasra numbers [or the purpose of granting the benefits and as such, the Central Government could not go in a piecemeal manner to amend the list of existing khasra numbers allegedly eligible for the benefits. He, however, points out that the Central Government reiterates that if any amendments are to be brought in this list it would be done in an organized manner after due deliberations. He, further, points out that the Central Government would welcome the representations by the petitioners industries in this behalf and would decide those representations on their own merits, particularly, depending upon the recommendations by the State Government or as the case may be, SIDCUL. 10. We are satisfied by this stance of the Central Government and would therefore, direct the petitioners industries to make. their representations. We have already seen the stand taken by the State Government and the SIDCUL in this behalf, which more or less, supports the industries that these industries were left out by mistake or erroneously. We, therefore, permit the petitioners industries to make a representation within 10 days from today. The representations of the petitioners will be entertained only and only if the case of the petitioners industries is recommended by the SIDCUL and or the State Government. Such representations shall be made even if the representation has already been made. We, therefore, permit the petitioners industries to make a representation within 10 days from today. The representations of the petitioners will be entertained only and only if the case of the petitioners industries is recommended by the SIDCUL and or the State Government. Such representations shall be made even if the representation has already been made. If the recommendations have not been so far made by the State Government and SIDCUL, the said recommendations would also be made with in 15 days from today if they so deem fit. If such representations are made, the Central Government shall dispose of those representations by 30th April, 2005 in the light of the observations made in this judgment as also in the light of the recommendations made by the State Government or SIDCUL. 11. With these directions, all the writ petitions are disposed of.