TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (8) TMI 550
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nting the petitioner from obtaining all the benefits to which it claimed to be entitled under the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "IPR, 1992"), the petitioner in support of the challenges noted hereinabove, submitted as follows: (a) The petitioner set up a large scale industrial unit for manufacture of sponge iron at Bileipada, Joda in the district of Keonjhar and was classified as a large scale industry under IPR, 1980. It availed sales tax loans as benefits under IPR, 1980. (b) The Government of Orissa published IPR, 1989 wherein it granted benefits for existing industries classified under IPR, 1980 wherein benefits of exemption from payment of sales tax on finished products was available subject to the loans availed under IPR, 1980 policy being repaid. The petitioner repaid the loans and applied for necessary eligibility certificates so that it could avail the benefits of exemption from payment of sales tax on finished products for a period of five years from the effective date of IPR, 1989, i.e., December 1, 1989. (c) However, in absence of an operation guideline, the petitioner could not avail the benefits and it came up in a writ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of 75 per cent of the additional capital investment in plant and machinery only. (75 per cent in Zone B and the petitioner's unit falls in Champua subdivision under Zone B). The proviso to the said clause 7.5 was that "provided further that the benefit of exemption/deferment shall not have the effect of reducing the sales tax paid by the unit prior to the commencing of the expansion/modernisation/diversification programmes. In other words, the benefits shall be applicable to 'incremental sales'." (h) The corresponding Finance Department notification was published vide Notification No. 41261-CAT-106/92-F on September 23, 1992 with effect from August 1, 1992 wherein entry 44 of the Tax Free Schedule List (A) was inserted. (i) That in pursuance to the said promises and/or notifications published by the Government of Orissa, both in the Industries Department as well as in the Finance Department as far as "EMD" of existing large scale industries was concerned, the petitioner made an additional investment of Rs. 70.48 crores by way of expansion on the basis of a separate project report duly appraised by the financial institutions. The expanded unit went into commercia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....um of Rs. 20 lakhs and the said subsidy was to be released within thirty days after the petitioner's expanded unit completed trial production. Since the petitioner's expanded unit has completed trial production in the year 1998, the petitioner was entitled to capital investment subsidy in the year 1998 and since the same was not granted, the petitioner has challenged the said non-grant of subsidy in this petition. (m) The provisions of para 7.5 of the IPR, 1992, the corresponding operational guidelines for availing the benefits and the entry 44 of the Tax Free Schedule of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 do not prescribe of a period by which the exemption is to be availed. They only prescribe the ceiling limit, i.e., 75 per cent of the fixed capital investment of plant and machinery. Therefore, up to the said limit, the petitioner can avail the exemption from payment of sales tax on finished goods and only on incremental sales. Therefore, it can be seen that it is a clear cut provision and the Government of Orissa while making the provision have applied its mind and the said decision not to impose a time period is a conscious decision of the Government. (n) Para 7 of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of incentives on the additional investment on plant and machinery taking into consideration the Zones "A", "B" and "C". It may be mentioned here that no time-limit has been fixed for availing such exemptions. The condition of period of exemption made for new small, medium and large scale industries in para 7.4 is in no way similar or comparable to the exemptions/deferment allowed to EMD industries in para 7.5.(u) The objectives of the IPR, 1992 under para 7.4 and 7.5 are different. They are as follows: (g) Government does not get any revenue by way of sales tax on finished products. (g) Government gets revenue by way of sales tax on finished products of existing turnover before expansion. Hence, clauses 7.4 and 7.5 are distinct and different from each other. The averment of the Industries Department in annexure 1 that paras 7.4 and 7.5 of the IPR, 1992 are co-related, is not correct. (v) The Director of Industries is authorised to issue the eligibility certificate but as per the conditions envisaged under the IPR, 1992, as the IPR was silent on the "period", the Director of Industries acted beyond his powers by limiting the period of eligibility to "five y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9;s expansion project being located in Zone B is entitled to a capital investment subsidy of 20 per cent of the fixed capital investment of Rs. 70.48 crores amounting to Rs. 14.096 crores and subject to a limit of Rs. 20 lakhs. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to subsidy of Rs. 20 lakhs. The State of Orissa have filed a counter-affidavit through the Assistant Director of Industries (RR) taking the following contentions: (A) The writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioner has been provided with the necessary benefits, i.e., tax benefit for a period of five years as per the terms of the guidelines of the Industries Department as well as Industrial Policy Resolution framed by the Government and is not entitled to any extra benefit as claimed by him. (B) M/s. IPITATA Sponge Iron Ltd., located at Joda under the subdivision of Champua, District Keonjhar is a large/medium industrial unit has changed its title to M/s. Tata Sponge and Iron Ltd., after obtaining approval from the Government of India. The original project was governed under the IPR, 1980 and it availed the sales tax incentives under the IPR, 1989 vide clause 7.3.1, part III as a continuing unit of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....centives as a pioneer unit under the IPR, 1989 as it was not a new unit under the said IPR. Government have accepted the above findings of the SLEC. The unit was allowed sales tax exemption for a period of five years accordingly as per the provisions of the IPR. (E) In the case of M/s. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd., the first fixed capital investment for its expansion was made on February 7, 1996 by way of purchase of plant and machinery (second kilns) valued at Rs. 56,55,000 for its EMD. The IPR, 1996 became effective from March 1, 1996. Therefore, though General Manager, District Industries Centre, Keonjhar recommended entitlement of benefit under IPR, 1996, determination of IPR by the Director of Industries, Orissa 1. Reported as Ipitata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. State of Orissa [2001] 122 STC 259 (Orissa). correcting it to IPR, 1992 was done basing on the first investment made by the unit on February 7, 1996. According to the general provisions of the incentives on sales tax as per clause 6.1 of IPR, 1992 "subject to operational guidelines instructions and procedures, sales tax incentives shall be allowed after the unit has gone into commercial production and from the date of commer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt industrial unit is an industry of IPR, 1980 and not a new industrial unit of IPR, 1992. As such, the petitioner's unit is not a "pioneer unit" as per the provision of clause 2.14 of IPR, 1992. (H) According to clause 5 of the operational guidelines vide L. No. 11068/I dated February 8, 1993 of Industries Department, sales tax incentive is restricted for a period of five years in case of all new and EMD units and seven years for pioneer industries. (I) It is submitted that: (i) the fixed capital investment (FCI) of the unit of EMD was assessed basing on the chartered accountant certificate produced dated March 10, 1999 by the unit as on February 28, 1999 to Rs. 6,135.61 lakhs. The petitioner-unit again vide its letter dated November 17, 1999 requested to reassess the fixed capital investment (FCI) basing on the another chartered accountant certificate dated July 29, 1999 taking into account the closure of financial year ended as on March 31, 1999. It is submitted that the exemption certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner unit on May 26, 1999, i.e., prior to receipt of the letter dated November 17, 1999. It was clarified to the petitioner that there is no p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ather, it is misconceived and irrelevant. On combined reading of the provisions under IPR at clause 6.7.5 and clause 5 of operational guidelines for IPR, 1992 issued vide L. No. 11068 dated February 8, 1993, the benefit to the tune of 75 per cent of the additional capital investment in plant and machinery under EMD is restricted to five years only after the unit had gone into commercial production after EMD is valid for the incremental sales only. (O) As per provisions of IPR, 1992 clause 7.5, industrial units taking up EMD are entitled for sales tax incentives limited to 60 per cent for Zone C, 75 per cent for Zone B and 100 per cent for Zone A of the additional capital investment in plant and machinery only. The petitioner unit has invested Rs. 4,601.36 lakhs in plant and machinery, the unit being located at Champua sub-division which is under Zone B, as per provisions 3 of IPR, 1992 (classification of area) is entitled for incentives limited to 75 per cent of capital investment in plant and machinery. Therefore, the unit is entitled to 75 per cent of Rs. 4,601.36 lakhs (investment under plant and machinery), i.e., Rs. 3,451 lakhs. Thus, the claim of the petitioner unit for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1, 1999. As per provisions, expenditure incurred after the unit goes into commercial production cannot be taken into consideration for evaluating the financial limit for sales tax exemption/ deferment. Therefore, Director of Industries has rightly rejected the claim for amending the eligibility certificate in disallowing the petitioner's claim for modification of investment. (T) It is submitted that by no way the legitimate benefit as per IPR, 1992 has either been denied to the unit or prevented by executive declaration as claimed by the unit. (U) It is, therefore, contended that the points raised by the petitioner have no merit as per IPR, 1992 along with the operational guidelines and other instructions and the Director of Industries, Orissa has not made anything wrong by not revising the petitioner unit's sales tax exemption/deferment eligibility certificate and in assessing its fixed capital investment. Before proceeding any further, it would be appropriate to take note of the relevant Industrial Policy Resolution, 1992, which arises for consideration in the present case. (I) The IPR, 1992 dated August 1, 1992 was published in the Orissa Gazette on Au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tives: . . . 4.3 Expansion/modernisation and diversification will be eligible for specific incentives as mentioned against the concerned incentive. However, defaulters of OSFC/IPICOL dues shall be eligible only after they have cleared such dues. Incentives 5.. Capital investment subsidy: 5.1 New industrial units as well as expansion/modernisation/diversification projects as defined earlier, shall be allowed capital investment subsidy in the following manner: . . . Zone "B".-20 per cent of the fixed capital investment subject to a limit of Rs. 20 lakhs. . . . 5.3. Capital investment subsidy will be released within 30 days after the unit completes trial production. 6.. Incentive sales tax-General provisions: 6.1 Subject to operational guidelines/instructions and procedure, sales tax incentives shall be allowed after the unit has gone into commercial production and from the date of commercial production. 6.2 Deemed payment of deferred sales tax: Whenever payment of sales tax on finished product is allowed to be deferred, such deferment shall, for the purpose of payment of income-tax by the concerned industrial unit, at the option of the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dues shall be eligible only after they clear such dues. of exemption or deferment of sales tax on finished products shall be available for expansion/modernisation/diversification of existing units taken up after the effective date subject to a limit of 60 per cent of the additional investment in plant and machinery only in Zone C, 75 per cent in Zone B and 100 per cent in Zone A provided that such expansion/modernisation/ diversification has been undertaken on the basis of separate project report duly appraised by the financial institutions and provided further that, subject to the provisions of the Sales Tax Act, the benefit of exemption/ deferment/shall not have the effect of reducing the sales tax paid by the unit prior to commencement of the expansion/modernisation/diversification programmes. In other words, the benefit shall be applicable to incremental sales. (II) The State of Orissa in the Finance Department passed a consequential notification to give effect to the IPR, 1992, bearing S. R. O. No. 1091 dated September 23, 1992 to take effect from August 1, 1992 the relevant portion of which are quoted hereinbelow: S.R.O. No. 1091/92.-In exercise of the powers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be certified by the concerned General Manager/Project Manager of the District Industries Centre: Provided that such exemption of sales tax on purchases of raw materials, spare parts of machinery and on sale of finished products taken together shall be limited to a ceiling of 100% of fixed capital investment in land, buildings, plant and machinery if the unit is located in Zone A, 75% of fixed capital investment if the unit is located in Zone B, 60% of fixed capital investment if the unit is located in Zone C: Provided that to be eligible for such exemption the unit shall produce certificate from OSFC/IPICOL showing clearance of their defaulted dues: Provided further that no exemption as indicated above shall be allowed to the following categories of industries. . . . 43. 44 (a) Purchase of - (i) Raw materials, that is to say, goods which directly go into the composition of the finished products. (ii) Spare parts of machinery used in the industry for manufacturing/processing goods in Orissa for sale. When purchased by a registered dealer who is certified by the Director of Industries, Orissa in Form E(92) as a new medium/large scale industrial unit located i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tment, in plant and machinery only in Zone C, 75 per cent of the additional capital investment in plant and machinery only in Zone B and 100 per cent of additional capital investment in plant and machinery only in Zone A. Explanation I. - Additional capital investment in plant and machinery means additional investment of 50 per cent or more of the undepreciated book value of fixed capital investment of an existing unit in acquisition of plant and machinery for expanding/modernising/diversifying the production of the said unit: Provided that the benefit of exemption is admissible only on the incremental sales arising out of such expansion/modernisation and diversification: (III) The State of Orissa in the Industry Department issued operational guidelines vide letter No. 4068/I dated February 8, 1993 under the IPR, 1992, relevant portions of which are quoted herein below: In pursuance of the IPR, 1992 issued by the Government vide Resolution No. 21875-XIV-HI-4/92/Ind., dated August 1, 1992 allowing exemption/deferment of sales tax to the eligible industrial units, Finance Department has issued Notification No. SRO 1091/92 dated September 23, 1992 allowing exemption/deferm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his purpose as may be prescribed by the Director of Industries, Orissa. 6.. An industrial unit will be treated as a "pioneer unit" only if, it is so certified by the Director of Industries. 7.. (a) In case of expansion/modernisation/diversification the concessions are available only in respect of the incremental sale over and above that of the immediate preceding year as it existed prior to expansion/modernisation/diversification of any industrial unit. (b) The industrial unit shall be eligible for the concessions if such expansion/modernisation/diversification has been undertaken on the basis of a separate project report duly appraised by the financing institutions (DIC/DI in case of self financed units). 8. In case of fixed assets acquired under hire-purchase or lease-hold basis the ceiling of sales tax concessions shall be computed on the original value of the said fixed assets. FORM NO. I-A Application for sales tax exemption/deferment of units which has undertaken expansion/modernisation/diversification under IPR, 1992. 1. Name and address of the unit. 2. Address of registered office of the organisation. 3. Type of industrial unit, i.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....92 on sales of finished products as mentioned hereunder: Sl. No. Item Specification, if any Annual quantity 1. 2. 3. Signature of proprietor/Mg. Partner/ Chief executive of M/s. . . . . . . . . . with designation and official seal. CERTIFICATE OF VERIFICATION Certified that the information furnished in this application have been verified and found correct. Signature of G.M./P.M/Manager/Asst. Manager of D. I. C. or Joint Director/Deputy Director/Asst. Director of Industries, Orissa FORM II-A OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES: ORISSA: CUTTACK/GENERAL MANAGER/PROJECT MANAGER. Certificate of eligibility for sales tax concession on sale of finished products of existing small-scale/medium/large industrial units which have undertaken expansion/modernisation/diversification as defined in IPR, 1992. Sl. No. . . . Dt. . . . To . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . This is to certify that: 1. The abovenoted industrial unit is a small-scale/medium/large/pioneer industrial unit which has been accorded certificate/PMT/DGTD Registration/Li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....992 as amended from time to time up to a ceiling amount of: 1) 100% of the additional capital investment in plant and machineries being located in . . . Zone-"A" 2) 75% -do. . . Zone-"B" 3) 60% -do. . . Zone-"C" 7. This certificate is issued for 5/7 years from the date of commercial production of expansion/modernisation/diversification and is valid from the date from . . . . . . to . . . . . . Director of Industries, Orissa/Cuttack /Additional Director of Industries, Orissa/ General Manager/Project Manager, D. I. C. . . . . . . . . . (Words and portion not applicable should be struck off or deleted while issuing the certificate) Memo No. . . . . . /Dt. . . . . Copy forwarded to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Orissa, Cuttack, Commercial Tax Officer, . . . . . /Director of Industries, Orissa or General Manager/Project Manager, DIC . . . . for information and necessary action. D. I./Addl. D. I., Orissa, Cuttack G.M./P.M., D.I.C. . . . . . . . . . . In the light of the rival contentions noted hereinabove, the interpretation of the IPR, 1992 and the consequential notifications issued thereunder, arise for consideration along with determination of the following questions: (i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prescribed. Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate and Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue as well as Director of Industries, vehemently objected to the aforesaid contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the opposite parties, although the IPR, 1992 and the Finance Department Notification No. 1091 of 1992 do not by themselves contain any stipulation regarding the period of time within which the entitlement of incentive must be utilised by the EMD units covered under paragraph 7.5 of IPR, 1992, yet the aforesaid IPR notification must be read not only along with the Finance Department Notification, but also with the "operational guidelines " issued by the Industry Department vide letter No. 4068 dated February 8, 1993, since the IPR, 1992 in paragraph 23.1 contains a stipulation that the State Government may issue operational guidelines/instructions for administration of incentives contained in this policy. Placing strong reliance on clause 23 of the IPR, 1992, learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that operational guideline has to be read along with the Finance Department Notification in order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and investment in the State of Orissa both for the purpose of providing employment, utilise the sources as well as for revenue collection. Having formulated the questions that have arisen for consideration in the present case, it would be apt at this point to take account of the various judgment of the honourable apex court which have laid down various salutary principles to provide guidance in the matter of such adjudication. (a) In interpreting a fiscal statute the court cannot proceed to make good the deficiencies, if there be any, in the statute. It shall interpret the statute as it stands and in case of doubt it shall interpret it in a manner favourable to the taxpayer. In considering a taxing Act, the court is not justified in straining the language in order to hold a subject liable to tax. See State of Punjab v. Jullundur Vegetables Syndicate [1966] 17 STC 326 (SC). (b) A perusal of Notification No. 116/88-Cus shows that the object and purpose of the said notification is to encourage exports by granting exemption from customs duty on materials that are required to be imported for the purpose of manufacture of the resultant products or for replenishment of the mater....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se it permits the importation of certain second-hand machineries to be used in the manufacture of goods meant only for export, in units situated in the defined zones. The object and purpose of such exemption notification is to encourage exports by granting exemption from customs duty on materials that are required to be imported for the purpose of manufacture of resultant products which are to be exclusively exported. The words of the notification have to be construed keeping in view the said object and purpose of the exemption. CEGAT erred in adopting a very narrow approach while construing the words 'for being used in connection with the production of goods for export'. See K. R. Steel Union Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs [2001] 4 SCC 736. (e) Even otherwise, the purpose of notification being to encourage increased production and to give benefit to industries which have invested rupees fifty crores or more in the State and whose production had thus increased, an interpretation must be given which would extend benefit to such industries. There would be no purpose in denying an industry which had invested rupees fifty crores or more and whose production in the State had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....If the argument of the department is accepted that the first part of the notification would apply only if Tata Cummins Ltd., is the owner of the land and building in which factory is located then we are not only giving a narrow interpretation to the notification which would defeat the object underlying the incentive policy but also it would be against the very text of the said notification(s) which omits the word "land" from the first part of the notification. See State of Jharkhand v. Tata Cummins Ltd. [2006] 145 STC 340 (SC); [2006] 4 JT 1 SC. Keeping the aforesaid objectives in focus, the State of Orissa in its IPR, 1992 declaration, clearly made a declaration to the effect that certain incentives stipulated in the said resolution would be available to the eligible industries. At this juncture, it would be necessary to take note of certain undisputed facts as revealed from the records of the Director of Industries produced before us in course of hearing. (i) The petitioner-company applied to the Director of Industries for being granted an eligibility certificate under the IPR, 1996 which came into effect from March 1, 1996. (ii) The Director of Industries took into acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayment of sales tax has always been for encouraging capital investment and establishment of industrial units for the purpose of increasing production of goods and promoting the development of the industry in the State. Therefore, the exemption granted to the respondent from August 9, 1985 when it fulfilled all the prescribed conditions will not cease to operate just because the capital investment exceeded the limit of Rs. 3 lakhs on account of the respondent becoming the owner of land and building to which the unit was shifted. Otherwise, the very purpose and object of the grant of exemption will be defeated. See Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Industrial Coal Enterprises [1999] 114 STC 365 (SC); [1999] 2 SCC 607. (d) A notification like the one which falls for our consideration (No. 77/80-Cus) cannot be read in a narrow manner so as to defeat the object of the notification because it permits the importation of certain second-hand machineries to be used in the manufacture of goods meant only for export, in units situated in the defined zones. The object and purpose of such exemption notification is to encourage exports by granting exemption from customs duty on materials that are r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....visaged under the Industrial Policy, 1995. If one reads the notification(s) in the light of the incentive policy it is clear that incentive is admissible to the unit which is the owner of the building in which it is located from which the industrial production commences or it (unit) is located in a leasehold premises (building or land or both), provided that the lease shall be of the minimum period of 15 years. As stated above, the eligibility criterion is that of a fixed investment by a genuine investor. In the present case, as stated above, we have to go by the interpretation of the notification(s) in the light of the policy. However, even if one goes by the strict interpretation of the notification(s) he would be in agreement with the view expressed by the High Court that the first part of the notification(s), as distinct from the second part, does not refer to the "land". If the argument of the department is accepted that the first part of the notification would apply only if Tata Cummins Ltd., is the owner of the land and building in which factory is located then we are not only giving a narrow interpretation to the notification which would defeat the object underlying the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....consequential notifications as required for the purpose of extending incentives committed by the State in the IPR. In furtherance thereof, the Finance Department have issued a S. R. O. dated September 23, 1992 in order to extend the benefit as contained in the IPR, 1992 by noting amendment to the "Tax Free Schedule" of the Orissa Sales Tax Act and such S. R. O., being statutory in nature, has also been duly published in Orissa Gazette. (b) It must also be borne in mind that the "operational guidelines" claiming to be the instructions for administration of incentives contained in policy, has been issued by way of a letter of Industries Department. It is clearly a form of sub-delegated legislation and such sub-delegated legislation has to be in consonance with the Industrial Policy Resolution and cannot create any further condition and/or stipulation by itself. If we accept the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the Revenue that the "operational guidelines" provide a "limitation" or "time period" for sales tax incentives, it would tantamount to accepting a principle that by subdelegated legislation, a delegate may also effectively amend or supplant the legislation, whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to the stipulations made in paragraph 7.5. In paragraph 7.4, it is clear that whereas "new industry" would be entitled to exemption of sales tax on raw materials, spare parts and finished products for a period of five years subject to the other conditions stipulated thereunder and such exemption would be available for a further period of two years if such units are declared as pioneer units, the stipulations made in paragraph 7.5 do not contain any such stipulation except to the following extent: ". . . the benefit of exemption/deferment shall not have the effect of reducing the sales tax paid by the unit prior to commencement of the expansion/modernisation/diversification programmes. In other words, the benefit shall be applicable to incremental sales." Therefore, the sales tax benefit to EMD units would only be available against "sale of finished products" and that too, only against "incremental sales" and, therefore, distinctly different from new industries covered under para 7.4. (b) The aforesaid view taken by us finds support from State of Punjab v. Jullundur Vegetables Syndicate [1966] 17 STC 326, wherein the apex court laid down the following principles: "In i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erred has to act within the limits of the authority conferred by the Act. Rules cannot be made to "supplant" the provisions of the enabling Act, but to "supplement" it. See Additional District Magistrate (Rev.), Delhi Admn. v. Siri Ram AIR 2000 SC 2143 and St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Eduction AIR 2003 SC 1533. By seeking to introduce a period of time in clause 5 and form No. II-A of the "operational guidelines", the delegate has in effect attempted to supplant a "time-period" into the provisions of IPR, 1992 instead of trying to supplement it. Similar attempts made earlier have been clearly rejected in the decisions of the apex court noted hereinafter. Since the authority to issue operational guideline flows from paragraph 23 of the IPR, 1992, therefore, as noted hereinabove, the authorities exercising their power to issue such operational guideline cannot be permitted to supplant and/or introduce criteria and/or limitations not already existing in IPR, 1992. In the case of Agricultural Market Committee v. Shalimar Chemicals Works Ltd. AIR 1997 SC 2502, the apex court has held as follows: ". . . It cannot, in the ga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....incentive offered under paragraphs 7.2 and 7.5. In the case of Shri Bakul Oil Industries v. State of Gujarat [1987] 64 STC 304, the apex court while considering a notification of exemption of tax under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, held that the petitioner-industry had established and commissioned its plant by May 17, 1970. The exemption notification applicable to the petitioner provided for exemption of tax under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, but did not provide any period of exemption. In other words, the notification did not stipulate as to how long the exemption from sales tax would remain in operation. The apex court concluded as follows: ". . . The position emerging therefrom is that the exemption granted under the notification was to have operative force only till such time that the exemption was allowed to remain before being withdrawn by a subsequent notification." Drawing an analogy from the aforesaid principles of law, we are of the view that for the incentive under paragraph 7.5 read with entry No. 44 as notified in S. R. O. No. 1091 of 1992, exemption of tax did not provide any period of limitation. Neither the IPR, 1992 nor the Finance Department Notification in S.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear ending on March 31, 1999. Therefore, after the book closure a separate audit certificate for the value of different assets capitalised in the books of account for the purpose of its expansion was obtained from the chartered accountant and accordingly, basing upon such certificate, necessary amendments of the eligibility certificate was sought under annexure 5 series. The petitioner's application was also duly recommended by the District Industries Centre, Keonjhar under annexure 4(b). This request of the petitioner for enhancement of the capital value has been rejected and in terms of the counter-affidavit filed by the Revenue, the stand taken by the State is that the request of the petitioner could not be accepted since an eligibility certificate had already been issued and since the alleged additional expenditure incurred by the petitioner was purportedly made after the unit had gone into commercial production, the same could not be considered for re-evaluating the financial limit for the purpose of sales tax exemption. In this regard, reference once again need be made to paragraph 7.5 of the IPR, 1992 which stipulates that "incentives by way of exemption or deferme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was denied by the sub-committee of State Level Committee (SLC) in their meeting held on May 22, 2000. The IPR, 1992 and/or its connected notifications do not contain any stipulation relating to a "maximum limit " of capital investment subsidy. In fact, no such stipulation could be pointed out in course of hearing. On the contrary, paragraph 5 of the IPR, 1992 clearly indicates that such benefit of subsidy would also be available to the existing units going in for expansion which also presupposes that such existing industry may/may not have availed capital investment subsidy on their earlier investments. Paragraph 5 of the 1992 IPR does not indicate any maximum limit nor does it stipulate that if an existing industry had obtained subsidy under any earlier IPR, it would be disentitled for subsidy under the present IPR. We are, therefore, of the view that the reasons advanced by the opposite parties for denying the petitioner the benefit of "capital investment subsidy" are not relevant nor lawful. The petitioner-company is justified in its claim for capital investment subsidy to the extent applicable to it. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner filed a stat....