TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (8) TMI 506
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ectives of the said policy, certain notifications were issued. Under Notifications S.O. Nos. 478 and 479 (both dated December 22, 1995) certain exemptions from payment of sales tax were to be allowed to the new industrial units, and also the existing industrial units intending expansion/diversification/modernisation, provided the production is started between September 1, 1995 to August 31, 2000. 3.. The petitioner as an existing unit undertook an expansion programme. On expanded capacity the unit was allowed exemption from the date of such production, i.e., September 17, 1996 for eight years, i.e., up to September 16, 2004. 4.. On March 2, 2000, Notifications S.O. Nos. 57 and 58 were issued amending S.O. Nos. 478 and 479, whereby the ben....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssion in favour of the petitioner under the Industrial Policy, 1995, and the policy has expired on August 31, 2000. The petitioner has challenged the said order in this writ petition. 7.. Mr. Poddar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the application for prior permission was under active consideration before the expiry of the Industrial Policy, 1995, and therefore it has been wrongly rejected on the ground that the said policy expired. If a decision was not taken on that application, by the authorities, the petitioner is not at fault. The application survived by virtue of Notifications S.O. Nos. 57 and 58 adopted by the State of Jharkhand. The notifications are to be harmoniously and liberally construed. He relied on [2003....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er authorities for the decision was not communicated on the application within sixty days. Moreover, even if the petitioner had moved the higher authorities, the policy expired on August 31, 2000, before the expiry of next sixty days within which the decision was to be communicated by the higher authorities. If the contention of Mr. Poddar is accepted, then even if the application was made just before the expiry of the policy, the same will survive till a decision was taken on that application. 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 per the prayer of the petitioner, the respondents are directed to take a decision on the application of the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n exemptions were allowed. Such registration was issued after about 15 months. In that situation, the Supreme Court held that in such a situation the unit could not be deprived of the benefit to which it was otherwise entitled merely because the authorities concerned took their own time in disposing of the application. Here there is a cut off date, i.e., the date when policy expires. 13.. Mr. Poddar also relied on the judgment of this Court in W.P. (T) No. 5712 of 2002 (Ambay Cement v. State of Jharkhand). This case is also not applicable to the present case. In that case even after granting a temporary registration certificate in favour of the unit on May 5, 2000 the authorities insisted for a prior permission further. In that situation, ....