TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (12) TMI 848
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le to take sales tax/purchase tax (exemption) for 10 years from March 30, 1991 to March 30, 2001 up to 8 crores of rupees". Even a letter to this effect was sent by the General Manager to the Assistant Commissioner, Excise and Taxation Department in January, 1992. 2.. On April 21, 1995, the Excise and Taxation Commissioner issued an exemption certificate under the provisions of the Punjab General Sales Tax (Deferment and Exemption) Rules, 1991, certifying that the petitioner shall be entitled to exemption to the extent of Rs. 6 crores during the period from March 1991 to March 2001. A copy of this certificate is at annexure P4. The petitioner submitted various representations. However, its request for extension of exemp tion from Rs. 6 crores to Rs. 8 crores was not accepted. 3.. The petitioner approached this Court through Civil Writ Petition No. 10325 of 1997. It was noticed by the Bench that the policy provided for exemption to the extent of Rs. 6 crores while under the Code, the limit was fixed at for Rs. 8 crores. There was "some confusion in view of the two notifications bearing No. 4/15/89 41BIII/2919 and 4/15/8941BIII/2929 dated 30th March, 1989". The Bench directed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner, Excise and Taxation, Punjab on October 24, 1989 to restrict sales tax/purchase tax benefit up to Rs. 6 crores. This being a communication from Government to Excise and Taxation Depart ment, did not come to the notice of the Director of Industries, Punjab and General Manager, District Industries,......" A copy of the letter dated October 24, 1989 is at annexure R1 with this reply. However, the respondents maintain that the impugned order is legal and valid. These are broadly the pleadings of the parties. 7.. On behalf of the petitioner, it was initially contended that the State Government had framed an Industrial Policy and Incentive Code in the year 1989. For the implementation of the policy, the Government had notified detailed rules. In the rules, a specific provision for grant of exemption from payment of sales tax/purchase tax to the extent of Rs. 8 crores was made in paragraph 6.2. It was specifically provided as under: 6.2. Quantum of entitlement (1) Sales/purchase tax exemption or sales tax deferment shall be available to units in different growth areas subject to maximum benefits to be regulated as per Table I. TABLE I Maximum benefit of sales/pur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....res shall be substituted with figure Rs. 6 crores. 12.. Mr. Sibal, learned counsel for the petitioner, had produced before us a photo copy of the Punjab Government Gazette of Novem ber 17, 1989, by which the abovenoted amendment/corrigendum was duly published in the gazette. The amendment of rule 6.2. was duly notified. 13.. In the background of the abovenoted factual position, the short question that arises for consideration is: Was the petitioner entitled to claim exemption from payment of sales tax/purchase tax beyond an amount of Rs. 6 crores? 14.. On a perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the docu ments on record, it appears that the Industrial Policy, 1989 was notified on March 30, 1989. In this policy, a provision for grant of exemption from payment of sales tax/purchase tax up to Rs. 6 crores was specifically made. Despite this specific provision in the policy, it was provided in the rules that the exemption shall be up to Rs. 8 crores. This was obviously contrary to the policy as notified on March 30, 1989. It appears that the mistake was noticed. A commu nication dated October 24, 1989 was sent by the Joint Secretary, Department of Industries, to the Fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aim as made in this petition cannot be sustained. However, what deserves notice is that prima facie there has been a serious dereliction of duty at all levels in the Department of Industries. Neither the Directorate, nor the officers of the Govern ment have cared to see the notification which had been issued in the year 1989. A cursory perusal of the file would have shown that the industrial policy had prescribed a limit of Rs. 6 crores. The rule had been framed to implement the policy, containing the provision for grant of exemption up to Rs. 8 crores. There was an apparent mistake. If the concerned officer had cared to apply his mind and examine the file, it would have been clear that the mistake had been duly noticed. Remedial measures had been adopted. The requisite correction had been made. It is only on scrutiny of the records during the course of proceedings in this Court that the correct position has emerged. Negligence in the performance of duties is writ large on the record of the case. But for the negligence of the officers, a lot of litigation and wastage of time would have been avoided. Their failure to perform the duties properly has resulted in the petitioner's appro....