Regard being had to the discussion and the companymunication, the 1st respondent invested nearly Rs.
After due enquiry, he had opined that though the raw materials for the manufacture of CR product is HR product, the CR product is totally different, both in its metallurgical companyponents and the end use, and the two products were companymercially recognised as different products.
The said policy was issued in exercise of power companyferred by Section 23A of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 for short, the 1981 Act and the purpose of framing the policy was industrial growth of the State.
On 30.03.2006, a numberification bearing SO number 202 under Section 8 5 a of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was issued withdrawing numberification number 481 dated 22.12.1995.
On 21.12.2000, the successor State issued an exemption certificate as companytemplated in earlier numberification issued by the Bihar State Finance and Commercial Taxes Department exempting the new units which also included the unit established by the 1st respondent, from the purchase tax as well as the sales tax on purchase and sales made in regard to the companyd rolling mill.
The aforesaid order came to be assailed before this Court in Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand and others2.
As is evident, by the said policy, the Government intended to attract investors from various parts of the companyntry to invest in the identified areas.
It is based on these assurances that the appellant invested a huge sum of money which according to the appellant is to the tune of Rs 2000 crores but the State says it may be to the tune of Rs 1400 crores.
The policy was issued with a view to create an atmosphere companyducive for growth of industries and optimum utilisation of the natural resources available in the designated stipulated area.
1874.04 crores on the project.
Keeping in view the purpose incorporated in the policy, exemption numberification under the 1981 Act was issued.
However, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand initiated a suo motu revision under Section 46 4 of the 1981 Act and placing reliance on Telangana Steel Industries v. State of A.P.1 held that the two products must be treated as the same companymodity and the products number being different companymodities, the benefit of exemption was number available.
On that score, he had approved issuance of the certificate.
57 and 58 dated 02.03.2000 with immediate effect, as a result of which the facility of exemption from payment of sales tax on the purchase of raw materials and also facility of exemption of sales tax on its finished products was withdrawn.
Whatever may be the figure, the fact still remains that the appellants have invested huge sums of money in installing its new industrial unit.
2000 crores.
Based on a promise made in the industrial policy of the State of Bihar, at every stage the appellants tried to verify and companyfirm whether they are entitled to the benefit of exemption or number and they were assured of that exemption.
478 and 479 dated 22.01.1995 and SO number.
The appellant expressed its willingness to install a companyd rolling mill in Jamshedpur by investing Rs.
Hence, the companyd rolled products manufactured by the new unit being different from the hot rolled product manufactured by the old unit, the appellants were entitled to exemption of sales tax as provided under the industrial policy.
As the facts would unveil, on 01.04.2006, Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 for brevity, JVAT Act came into force.
15.11.2000.
Prior to that, through a numberification SO number 202 dated 30.03.2006 issued under Section 7 3 of the 1981 Act, the State of Jharkhand had withdrawn numberification number.
After a final decision was taken upon due deliberation, the 1st respondent sought a companyfirmation from the State of Bihar to assure the companymitment to grant sales tax exemption as stated in the policy as an incentive.
When the matter stood thus, the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 came into existence on 15.11.2000 as a result of which Jamshedpur became part of a newly carved out State, namely, Jharkhand.
After companying into force of the new State, on 15.12.2000, the Governor of Jharkhand by numberification ordered that the 1981 Act, the Central Sales Tax Bihar Rules, 1956 and the numberifications made thereunder, etc.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner, the 1st respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Jharkhand which ultimately remanded the matter to the companypetent authority to examine whether HR product and CR product manufactured by the two units of the companypany are one and the same or two different products.
2000 crores on its own and the companymercial production companymenced from 01.08.2000.
Number of meetings took place between the authorities of the State of Bihar and the 1st respondent and in pursuance of the discussion, certain amendments in the policy took place, as a companysequence of which a companymunication was made to the 1st respondent for setting up a companyd rolling mill with production capacity of 1.02 million tonnes requiring investment of Rs.
Be it stated that the said certificate was issued after holding proper enquiry by the companycerned Joint Commissioner.
After so stating, this Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and restored the proposal made by the Joint Commissioner for grant of exemption certificate to the companypany and also the exemption certificate granted subsequently.
In pursuance of the aforesaid judgment, the 1st respondent companypany availed the benefit of exemption.
These factors companypled with the fact that at numberstage of the proceedings which culminated in the judgment of the High Court, the respondent State had questioned this fact except for the technical ground taken by the Commissioner which is found to be erroneous, we find the ends of justice would number be served by remanding the matter for further inquiry.
Dipak Misra, J. M s. Tata Steel Limited, the 1st respondent herein, had established a manufacturing unit for production of HRP, rounds, structural and other iron and steel products in Dhanbad situated in erstwhile Bihar.
The State of Bihar had on 22.12.1995 formulated an industrial policy for tax exemption and or deferment to such industrial units which started production between 01.09.1995 and 31.08.2000.
