Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner, an existing industrial unit seeking expansion or modernisation, was entitled to prior permission and consequential sales tax exemption under the industrial policy notifications notwithstanding that the policy period had expired before prior permission was granted.
Analysis: The notifications issued to implement the Industrial Policy, 1995 were tied to the policy period and were intended to operate within the framework of the policy itself. For existing units seeking expansion or modernisation, the amended notifications required prior permission before the specified authorities and provided a time-bound mechanism for decision-making, but they did not create any deemed grant if the authorities failed to act within the outer period. The policy expired on 31 August 2000, and the petitioner had not obtained prior permission before that cut-off date. The Court rejected the contention that the application survived indefinitely or that the notifications continued independently after the policy came to an end. The cited precedents were distinguished on the ground that they did not involve a policy-specific cut-off date.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the claimed benefit, and the refusal to grant prior permission was upheld.