TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (8) TMI 665
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....exure "A" to the petition. 2.. The petitioner set up an oxygen gas plant in Village Mamsa in Bhavnagar District which area is covered by the aforesaid scheme. The scheme came into operation from August 16, 1995 and remained in force up to August 15, 2000. There is no dispute about the fact that the plant was set up during the operation period of the scheme and the commercial production commenced on January 20, 1999. There is also no dispute about the petitioner's case that it is an eligible unit under the scheme. The petitioner had claimed the incentives under the scheme in respect of the following fixed capital investments: (i) Land acquired by the petitioner on July 4, 1994 at a cost of Rs. 8,25,448. Oral (ii) New....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is concerned, though the reply affidavit does not specifically deal with the building, the learned AGP submits that since the construction contract for the building was entered into on July 1, 1995, i.e., before the date of commencement of the Scheme, the petitioner is not eligible to get any incentive in respect of the building also. 4.. At the hearing of the petition, Mr. Rashesh S. Sanjanwala, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that since the plant and machinery was taken delivery of, and installed, by the petitioner at its factory site, merely because the initial orders for the plant and machinery were placed by Asiatic Steel Industries Ltd., and part payment was made by Asiatic Steel Industries Ltd., it cannot be said that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orities that the plant and machinery was delivered, or installed, at the premises of Asiatic Steel Industries Ltd., the petitioner's case that the plant and machinery was delivered by the manufacturer at the petitioner's premises and was for the first time installed and used by the petitioner certainly deserves to be looked into by the State Level Committee, if the petitioner produces the documents in support of its case. 6.. As far as the building is concerned, it is the petitioner's case that although the construction contract was entered into on July 1, 1995 the contract was executed for a period over four years and, therefore, the contract was substantially executed during the period of operation of the scheme between August 16, 1995....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing was acquired and repaired. The only ground for not accepting the petitioner's claim in respect of the building is that the construction contract was entered into by the petitioner on July 1, 1995, i.e., before the date of commencement of the scheme. When the building contract worth about Rs. 15 lakhs was executed over a period of four years, it would appear that substantial part of the contract was executed after the date of the commencement of the scheme and, therefore, this claim of the petitioner is also required to be considered by the State Level Committee without being obsessed by the date of execution of the construction contract. 7.. As far as the land is concerned, according to the petitioner, the land can never be new and, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the period of discontinuation of production." Mr. Gori further invites our attention to the statement made in the reply affidavit which reads as under: "After going into commercial production in January, 1999 as per the data given by petitioner the unit remained non-operative during July, 2000 to August, 2001, 13 months. Again since February, 2004 the unit is out of operation till April, 2004." 10.. Mr. Sanjanwala for the petitioner, however, submits that sales tax incentives are required to be computed on the basis of the investments made by the petitioner and the subsequent developments about any break in production cannot have a bearing on the decision whether the petitioner was eligible for incentives under the Scheme or not. I....