TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 61
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (the Punjab Scheduled Road and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Rules 1965 hereafter called "the Punjab Rules") the petitioner's architect certified that the building was complete and that it could apply for occupancy certificate. The petitioner with the state authorities and the local body with respect to the building exchanged correspondence; on 10/16 May 2006, in this context the petitioner wrote to the Director of Industries, stating that the building completed by it was ready. It was pointed out that the building was constructed on an area of 24299 square meters of which 4818.3 square meters was earmarked for common areas and that the building was approved by the Senior Town Planner of Haryana (Gurugram). On 4/8 August 2006, the petitioner wrote to the Joint Director, District Industries Centre, submitting details of its constructed area, pointing out that it comprised three basements and measured 14715.55 square meters. 3. On 19/21st August 2006, the Joint Director, District Industries Centre was told that the area specified in the petitioner's application was calculated on super area basis, which was also the premise on which the units were leased ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l was based upon the petitioner's undertaking that the Industrial Park would be constructed on an area of 24299.75 sq. mtrs. but that on 30.03.2013, it sought approval for amendment stating that the constructed area was reduced to 14715.55 sq. mtrs. The material portion of the said letter/order reads as follows: "6. As per clause 4 of this Department's approval letter dated 05.12.2006 and clause 11 of the Notification dated 09.02.2007 of the CBDT, the conditions mentioned in the approval and those mentioned in the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 are to be adhered to during the period when benefits under this scheme are to be availed and in case of failure to comply with any of these conditions, the Government may withdraw the approval. 7. It has however been noticed that the undertaking has not adhered to the conditions laid down in the approval letter as well as in the notification issued by CBDT. In view of this, the approval already granted to the undertaking vide letter of even number dated 05.12.2006 hereby stands withdrawn as there has been violation of the following conditions: (i) The undertaking failed to ensure commencement of the Industrial Park by 31.03.2006 which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the construction was not completed within time is unsustainable in law. 8. The DIPP in its counter affidavit and its counsel during the course of hearing did not dispute that the letters written by the District Industries Center, Government of Haryana as well as the Joint Director, DIC, Gurgaon, intimating to it about the area had mentioned that the total constructed space was 14715.55 sq. mtrs. It is, however, stated that this was the time when the complete verification of the report had not been carried out. The counter affidavit states that the Empowered Committee noted that the petitioner applied for Occupancy Certificate on 08.05.2006, which was issued on 20.10.2006. It also states that the Deputy Secretary, CBDT informed that the undertaking in the documents furnished to the Income Tax Authorities claimed the area built up to be 8094.02 sq. mtrs. The Occupancy Certificate too mentions 8094.02 sq. mtrs. Having regard to all these facts, and given that the petitioner initially applied and undertook to construct 24299.75 sq. mtrs., the withdrawal of the notification based upon the reasoning in the impugned order cannot be faulted with. It is not denied that the completi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....later revoked, clearly states, by the proviso that the "before withdrawal, the undertaking being industrial park shall be given an opportunity of being heard". In the present case, there does not appear to have been any prior opportunity; even the written submissions given to the committee was not considered or adverted to. The material facts, such as the approval given by the town planning authorities, the repeated inter se correspondence between the Haryana Director of Industries (based on whose recommendation the approval and notification were issued in 2007) and the explanation given by the petitioner were completely ignored. The DIPP just went by a bare comparison of the area in the Original Application (24299.75 sq. mtrs.) and the final built up area (14715.55 square meters). The petitioner's explanation as regards the built up area being the larger super area (for which the leases were entered into) and the actual carpet area being 8094 square meters were ignored altogether. In these circumstances, the impugned order and notification suffers from non application of mind. 11. As far as the other question (i.e. not completing the project before the approved date) is concern....