IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8201 of 1995 M/S DINA METALS LIMITED,DIDARGANJ, PATNA -9, represented by one of its Directors Sanjay Kumar Bhartiya, son of Late Deen Dayal Bhartiya, resident of Rambagh, Patna City – 8, PS Chowk, Patna City ………Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Finance Department,Government of Bihar, patna 3. The Industrial Development Commissioner, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, patna 4. The Director of Industries,Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 5. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna 6. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, East Circle, Patna City, Patna ………Respondents ----------- 03- 3/9/2010 Heard Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha for the petitioner, and Mr. Ram Subhash Singh, learned Assistant Counsel to AAG VI. The writ petition has been preferred for a direction to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant exemption from payment of tax on purchase of raw materials in terms of clause 10.4 of the Industrial Policy 1993, which was duly published in the official Gazette on 16.7.1993, and to suitably amend Notification No.S.O. 95, dated 4.4.1994, by which the Commercial Taxes Department has stipulated that the exemption from payment of tax on purchase of raw materials shall be given only to those units which had 2 come into production after 1.4.1993, and not to those old units which have completed expansion/diversification of their units after 1.4.1993. It is further prayed to hold that the said notification is contrary to the Industrial Policy 1993, and for issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondents to grant exemption to the petitioner from payment of tax on purchase of raw materials since the petitioner fulfills necessary conditions under the Industrial Policy 1993, and further direct that no tax shall be charged by the seller of the raw materials from the petitioner and to further grant exemption certificate to the petitioner. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. In order to promote industrial growth in the State, the Government of Bihar issued Industrial Incentive Policy 1993 (Annexure 1), granting concessions to different kinds of industries covered by the Policy which would be entitled to those concessions if found eligible. Para 10.4 of the Policy is relevant in the present context, and is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference:- 3 “10.4. SALES TAX EXEMPTION ON THE PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIAL: (i) This facility will be admissible to the industrial units mentioned in Annexure-V in the following manner : a) Industrial Units coming into production between 1.4.93 to 31.3.98 whose investment on plant & machinery does not exceed Rs.15.00 Crores shall be entitled for this facility for a period of seven years from the date of production. b) Such old industrial units whose investment on plaint & machinery do not exceed Rs.15.00 Crores on 1.4.93 shall be entitled for this facility for a period of seven years from 1.4.93. (ii) All other industrial units shall continue to enjoy the existing facility of purchase of raw material on concessional rate of tax as announced and made applicable by the Sales Tax Department as before.” This was followed by another Notification of the State Government of 2.4.94 (Annexure 2), the preamble of which stated that units which were set up after 1.4.93 shall be entitled to the benefits under Annexure-1. The authorities interpreted the two documents to mean that those of the units which had gone into production after 1.4.93, shall not be entitled to the benefits under the policy decision. In other words, the authorities took the stand that the units which were in existence on or after 4 1.4.93 shall be deprived of the benefits. The petitioner had started production on 23.10.90, and, according to the authorities, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit(s) of the Policy. 3. The combined effect of Annexures 1 and 2 fell for the consideration of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s Suprabhat Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar [1995 (2) PLJR 536]. The Division Bench held that the units existing on or before 1.3.93 shall also be entitled to the benefits under the policy decision. The State of Bihar challenged the same by preferring appeal in the Supreme Court which was dismissed by its judgment dated 17.11.98, in State of Bihar vs. Suprabhat Steel Ltd. [AIR 1999 SC 303]. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court affirming the decision of this Court, it is evident that the petitioner Company is also entitled to the industrial benefit(s) contemplated by the industrial policy. Indeed the petitioner has received all the benefits and, therefore, is entitled to retain the same. 5 4. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Birendra Prasad Verma ) mrl