TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court denies post-expiration industry expansion approval, citing policy deadline & lack of interpretation scope.</h1> <h3>Mittal Polypacks Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Jharkhand and others</h3> The court dismissed the petitioner's claims for entitlement to prior permission for industry expansion/modernization under the Industrial Policy, 1995, ... - Issues:- Entitlement to prior permission for industry expansion/modernization under Industrial Policy, 1995- Interpretation of Notifications S.O. Nos. 57 and 58 in relation to the Industrial Policy- Consideration of application for prior permission before and after the expiry of the Industrial Policy- Effect of expiration of Industrial Policy on pending applications for prior permission- Applicability of judgments Commissioner of Central Excise v. M.P.V. and Engg. Industries and Ambay Cement v. State of Jharkhand- Relationship between exemption notifications and Industrial Incentive PolicyAnalysis:1. The petitioner claimed entitlement to prior permission for expanding/modernizing its industry under the Industrial Policy, 1995, to avail benefits specified in related notifications.2. The Industrial Policy, 1995, announced by the erstwhile Government of Bihar, provided exemptions under Notifications S.O. Nos. 478 and 479 for new and existing industrial units undertaking expansion/diversification/modernization.3. The petitioner, an existing unit, commenced an expansion program and was granted exemption from the date of production for eight years under the said notifications.4. Amendments to the notifications were made through Notifications S.O. Nos. 57 and 58, extending benefits to new units with prior approval before the policy expiry, subject to starting production within five years.5. Despite submitting an application for modernization before the policy expiry, the petitioner's request for prior approval was rejected post-expiration, leading to the current challenge.6. The petitioner argued that the application was pending before the policy expired and should not be rejected solely due to the policy lapse, citing relevant case law for support.7. The respondents contended that only industries with prior approval before the policy expiry were covered by the notifications, justifying the rejection of the petitioner's request.8. The court analyzed the provisions of Notifications S.O. Nos. 57 and 58, highlighting the application process and the absence of provisions for situations where decisions were not communicated within the stipulated time.9. The court emphasized that the notifications were interlinked with the Industrial Policy, 1995, and could not survive independently post-policy expiration, rejecting the petitioner's arguments for continued consideration.10. Referring to relevant judgments, the court distinguished cases involving delayed approvals from the present scenario with a clear policy expiration deadline.11. The court dismissed the petitioner's claims, concluding that no relief could be granted due to the lack of scope for liberal interpretation in favor of the petitioner.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved and the court's reasoning in addressing each aspect of the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
