TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (9) TMI 510
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ranted. This group of civil appeals is directed against the separate judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Orissa whereby the High Court has allowed the writ applications filed by the respondents, and further directed the appellants herein to issue necessary sales tax exemption certificate in favour of the respondents under the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1989 (in short, "IPR 1989"), issued by the State of Orissa. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in this group of appeals, we propose to decide these appeals by a common judgment, noticing the facts of leading case Civil Appeal No. 364 of 1994. 2.. The State of Orissa, appellant No. 1 herein, had been issuing IPRs from time to time and for the purpose of the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sions in the form of sales tax exemption under IPR 1989 but the same was rejected by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Balasore (appellant No. 3) by an order dated September 29, 1992. Under such circumstances, the respondent was informed that its unit was of IPR 1986 and that under the said IPR its unit was not eligible to get sales tax exemption either on purchase of raw material or on sale of its finished products and hence the respondent was not entitled to sales tax concession under IPR 1989. 4.. This led the respondent filing a writ application before the Orissa High Court challenging the order whereby the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Balasore, had refused to extend sales tax exemption to it under IPR 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent's unit was a continuing industry as it was covered by clause 2.18 of IPR 1989 and secondly, that the input capacity of the unit being more than 10 m.t. per day/per 8 hrs. shift, the respondent-unit was entitled to sales tax exemption. The finding recorded by the High Court that the respondent unit is a continuing unit under clause 2.18 of IPR 1989 is factually incorrect. Clause 2.18 of IPR 1989 provides that any industrial unit where fixed capital investment commenced on or after August 1, 1980 and prior to April 1, 1986 could be given the status of "continuing industry of 1980 policy". In the present case, the respondent made the first investment in fixed capital (land, building, plant or machinery) on July 17, 1989 and as such it wou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... only those small-scale continuing units of 1986 policy which were eligible to get concession/incentive and further has received such concession for five years would be given exemption of sales tax on finished products for additional period of two years. As stated above, although the respondent set up its unit on July 17, 1989, but it was not eligible to get incentives/concessions in the form of sales tax exemption under IPR 1986 as it was in the "ineligible list" for grant of incentives/concessions irrespective of input capacity according to the provision of Part B, definition (f) of IPR 1986. Thus, in view of clause 7.2.3, the respondent's unit was not entitled to the benefit of incentives/concessions in the form of sales tax exemption un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion before. Learned counsel also referred to annexure I to IPR 1989 as the respondent's unit having more than 10 m.t. input capacity, was entitled to sales tax exemption. The notification referred to by learned counsel for the respondent has to be read along with the IPR 1989 policy because the State Government's notification on sales tax exemption is amended from time to time with reference to change in the industrial policy of the State Government described in the Industrial Policy Resolutions. No doubt, oil mills of more than 10 m.t. were shown in the list of industries eligible to get exemption of sales tax in the notification dated August 16, 1990, but this amendment related to the industries which have commenced investment after Dece....