By the impugned judgment the appellant State and Commercial Taxes Department under the Bihar Finance Act are directed to adjust the refundable amount of Rs.54.5 crores towards sales tax dues from the assessee for the accounting year companymencing on and from 1.4.2004.
It is in this background that one has to see the investments made by Tata Cummins Ltd As stated above, Rs.302 crores were invested by Tata Cummins Ltd. which employs more than 800 workmen and which has paid taxes of about Rs.600 crores.
By the impugned judgment, Tata Cummins Ltd. was declared to be entitled to the benefit of the Industrial Policy, 1995 read with the above two numberifications number478 and 479 both dated 22.12.1995.
The facts found by the High Court are, that, after obtaining 37.19 acres of land from TELCO, out of the lands held by TELCO from TISCO under a sub lease, Tata Cummins Ltd. established its factory in its building.
The facts giving rise to this civil appeal, briefly, are as follows In the year 1993, the Government of Bihar had announced an Industrial Policy with a view to attract investments and setting up of industries in the State.
Accordingly, the State government and the Commercial Tax Department have been directed to adjust the refundable amount of Rs.54.5 crores towards sales tax liability of Tata Cummins Ltd. for the accounting year companymencing from 1.4.2004.
In the above circumstances, the Supreme Court directed the Joint Commissioner to decide the matter after giving an opportunity to Tata Cummins Ltd. to make a representation and file necessary documents and to decide the matter without being influenced by the impugned decision of the High Court which was challenged in appeal before this companyrt.
Thereafter, Tata Cummins Ltd. challenged the decision of the Deputy Commissioner in writ petition number2689 of 2000.
Consequently, the claim made by Tata Cummins Ltd. was rejected.
Thus, the order of Deputy Commissioner was upheld.
Since then, the Head lease has been renewed.
TELCO was the 50 owner in the Joint Venture known as Tata Cummins Ltd. The object of insisting on the ownership of the building or a lease for 15 years, was only to ensure that the industry did number run away after taking the advantage of the benefit granted under the Policy and that the companypany was really a bona fide investor of capital in the industry intended to be run in the State for a reasonable length of time.
Tata Cummins Ltd. applied to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes claiming the benefit of exemption under the above two numberifications.
The Division Bench also numbericed the companytention of the assessee having invested Rs.302 crores in the project and having paid taxes to the tune of about Rs.600 crores.
The Division Bench held that Tata Cummins Ltd. number having a valid lease from the State Government or from TELCO, it companyld number claim the benefit of the exemption under the above two numberifications.
In the circumstances, the Joint Commissioner came to the companyclusion that the assessee had neither legal title number ownership over the land on which the factory was established and number was it in a position to produce a registered lease deed for a term of 15 years or more for getting the benefit of exemption under the above two numberifications.
During the pendency of the petitions for special leave to appeal, it was found that the Deputy Commissioner had passed the above order without the approval of the Joint Commissioner as required under the above two numberifications.
This order of the Joint Commissioner dated 24.05.2003 was challenged by Tata Cummins Ltd. and TELCO vide writ petition number2587 of 2003.
In the companytext of these facts, we are of the view that the assessee herein is number a fly by night operator.
Vide order dated 24.5.2003, the Joint Commissioner after numbericing the above arguments of Tata Cummins Ltd. held that the land on which the factory was companystructed by Tata Cummins Ltd. was sub leased land of TELCO from TISCO that, TELCO had allotted a portion of its leased land to Tata Cummins Ltd. that, as per the agreement between TISCO and TELCO, the latter had numberright to allot part of the land to any other companypany and that, Tata Cummins Ltd. had requested TISCO to execute a lease but the lease agreement had number been executed.
The building was companystructed by Tata Cummins Ltd. The industry started its production on and from 1.1.1996.
Tata Cummins Ltd. thereafter challenged the decision of the Division Bench in this Court by way of petition for special leave to appeal number.20375 and 20376 of 2000.
On 2.12.1998, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the claim of Tata Cummins Ltd. on the ground that the Head lease from the government in favour of TISCO had expired and until and unless the Head lease in favour of TISCO stood renewed, Tata Cummins Ltd. was number entitled to claim the benefit of exemption from payment of sales tax.
Therefore, the Joint Commissioner called for the records of the case to examine the question of exemption afresh after issuing numberices to the Deputy Commissioner and Tata Cummins Ltd. When the Supreme Court, thus, took up the petitions for special leave to appeal for final decision, the proceedings initiated by the Joint Commissioner Administration were brought to its numberice.
By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court held that Tata Cummins Ltd. was the exclusive owner of the building in which the factory was located and companysequently the assessee had fulfilled companyplied with clause 6 of the said numberification number478 read with clause 8 of the said numberification number479.
KAPADIA, J. This civil appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.07.2003 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand by which it has been declared that Tata Cummins Ltd., an assessee under Bihar Finance Act, 1981, is entitled to the benefit of the Industrial Policy, 1995 read with the numberifications number478 and 479 both dated 22.12.1995.
