TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (1) TMI 655
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 57 dated March 2, 2000 both issued under Bihar Industrial Policy, 1995, even in absence of any formal document regarding prior approval issued under notification dated March 2, 2000. Similarly, in W.P. (T) No. 2144 of 2003, petitioner is claiming exemption from payment of sales tax on sale of finished goods under S.O. No. 479 dated December 22, 1995 read with S.O. No. 58 dated March 2, 2000. 4.. The case of the petitioner in short is as follows: In the year 1995, the State of Bihar with a view to promote industries in the State, assured the entrepreneurs to give all possible help. For this purpose a single window system was started. An industrial policy was announced granting various incentives including the sales tax exemptions. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard. As the plant was lying idle for about two years, the petitioner could start production only on July 19, 2001. In the meantime, Industrial Policy, 1995 expired on August 31, 2000 but before expiry, the State Government issued two Notifications being S.O. Nos. 57 and 58, both dated March 2, 2000 amending the earlier notifications dated December 22, 1995. By this amendment, the benefits were extended to those new industrial units also who are granted a prior permission before the expiry of the policy, i.e., August 31, 2000 but starts production within five years from the issue of such permission. As soon as the petitioner knew about the aforesaid notifications dated March 2, 2000, it requested the Industries Department to issue Certifica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes stayed the hearing on the ground of pendency of the present writ petition. 5.. The petitioner's contention, therefore, is that whatever was possible, was done by the petitioner at its end but due to the action/ inaction on the part of the Electricity Board, the production could not be started before the expiry of the policy and the prior permission was also not granted inspite of repeated requests made before the expiry of the policy. Thereafter the matter of grant of exemption certificate is being delayed by the Commercial Taxes Department, due to which the petitioner is suffering great loss every day and a substantial period of exemption about two and half years has passed in the meantime. Thus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Learned counsel for the State submitted that the provision for obtaining prior permission is also applicable in case of a new industrial unit, though he fairly admitted that the placing of the provisions in the notifications is not proper. He submitted that clause 1(ka) applicable to the new industrial unit, contemplate a prior permission "Purwanumati" whereas the provisions in case of expansion/diversification contemplates a prior approval "Purwanumodan". Clause 2(3) of S.O. Nos. 57 and 58 further provides that in case of medium scale industries like the petitioner, a committee consisting of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Director of Industries and Director of Technical Development is competent to grant "Purwanumati", the prior pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns. 9.. Regarding the first question, we are satisfied that if the Notification Nos. 57 and 58 are read properly even the new industrial unit was required to obtain prior permission before the expiry of the Policy. It could not be intended by the Government that the said Industrial Policy, 1995 and the exemption notifications issued thereunder, would continue for indefinite period. Admittedly, the petitioner did not have the required prior permission. We adopt the reasoning given in Mittal Polypack's case* (2003) 4 JCR 416 (Jharkh), which reads as follows: "10. …………… We are of the view that this could not be the object and intention to continue the provisions for an indefinite period. For example, if, as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... within sixty days and by the higher authorities within the next sixty days. Neither it is treated a deemed grant or deemed refusal. This position was known to the entrepreneurs. Therefore, it appears that the pending applications also lapsed on the expiry of the policy on August 31, 2000. Probably this amendment was introduced to save those units, who inspite of their best efforts were not in a position to start production before the expiry of the policy." 10.. Regarding the second question, we are satisfied that the petitioner was not quite diligent. It applied for electric connection in September, 1995 but the same was given on December 22, 2000, i.e., after a delay of about five years but it did not take this delay seriously. Even afte....