Court orders reconsideration of petitioner's case, grants production date, and quashes communication.

The court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case and grant the date of production as 28.03.2012 within six weeks, quashing the impugned communication dated 14.06.2012. The respondents were also instructed to accept any additional documentary evidence if required. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashment of communication regarding the date of production.
2. Grant of date of commencement of production as 28.03.2012.
3. Consideration of documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner.
4. Impact on Income Tax benefits under Section 80 IB of the Income Tax Act.
5. Respondents' failure to take timely decision and its consequences.

Summary:

Issue 1: Quashment of Communication Regarding the Date of Production
The petitioner sought the quashment of a communication issued in Form No. 11772 dated 14.06.2012, which recorded the initial date of production as 12.06.2012 instead of 28.03.2012. The petitioner argued that the actual date of production was 28.03.2012, supported by documentary evidence such as stock registers and invoices.

Issue 2: Grant of Date of Commencement of Production as 28.03.2012
The petitioner requested a writ of Mandamus to command the respondents to recognize the commencement date as 28.03.2012. The petitioner's unit, registered under various tax regulations, started manufacturing biscuits from 28.03.2012. Despite submitting the requisite documents, the respondents recorded the date as 12.06.2012, causing prejudice to the petitioner.

Issue 3: Consideration of Documentary Evidence Submitted by the Petitioner
The petitioner provided substantial documentary evidence, including stock registers, procurement records, and tax returns, to prove the commencement of production on 28.03.2012. The court noted that the respondents had admitted the correctness of the petitioner's claims but failed to inspect the unit on the claimed date.

Issue 4: Impact on Income Tax Benefits under Section 80 IB of the Income Tax Act
The incorrect recording of the production date affected the petitioner's entitlement to benefits under Section 80 IB of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner had been filing returns and claiming deductions based on the actual commencement date. The delay in recognizing the correct date led to the reopening of Income Tax Returns and potential withdrawal of benefits.

Issue 5: Respondents' Failure to Take Timely Decision and Its Consequences
The court found that the respondents had delayed taking a decision on the actual date of production despite an interim order dated 30.11.2018 directing them to consider the correct date if there were no legal impediments. The inaction over ten years caused significant prejudice to the petitioner, including the incorrect categorization under medium scale and the subsequent tax implications.

Conclusion:
The court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case and grant the date of production as 28.03.2012 within six weeks, quashing the impugned communication dated 14.06.2012. The respondents were also instructed to accept any additional documentary evidence if required. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

---