https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393085 The court held that respondent No. 1 lacked jurisdiction to direct respondent No. 2 to withdraw the approval granted under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002, without providing the petitioner with a hearing. It was found that the action was arbitrary and lacked jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the delay in issuing the occupancy certificate should not affect the petitioner's rights. The court rejected the Revenue's argument regarding the "date of commencement" under the Scheme 2002 and directed respondent No. 1 to notify the petitioner's industrial park in compliance with the Scheme within three months. en-us Tue, 26 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Mar 2020 14:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393085 The court held that respondent No. 1 lacked jurisdiction to direct respondent No. 2 to withdraw the approval granted under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002, without providing the petitioner with a hearing. It was found that the action was arbitrary and lacked jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the delay in issuing the occupancy certificate should not affect the petitioner's rights. The court rejected the Revenue's argument regarding the "date of commencement" under the Scheme 2002 and directed respondent No. 1 to notify the petitioner's industrial park in compliance with the Scheme within three months. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 26 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393085