CWP no.1894 of 1992 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.1894 of 1992 Date of decision: 28.9.2010 M/s Varinder Agro Chemicals Limited -----Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. A.C.Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Addl.A.G.Punjab. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This petition seeks a direction against recovery of octroi from the petitioner and also for refund of the octroi duty already recovered. 2. Case of the petitioner is that it set up a factory at Barnala in the year 1979. As per industrial policy dated 21.3.1979 declared by the State of Punjab, there was exemption from levy of octroi duty for the State of Punjab for period ranging from five years to ten years depending upon the area in which the industry was set up. The exemption was to commence from the date of issue of registration certificate for availing of the incentive for the first time. Though the petitioner’s unit was allotted registration in the year 1985, the area came in the municipal limits from 1.1.1990 and thus, the petitioner 1 CWP no.1894 of 1992 started availing exemption from 1.1.1990. Inspite of this position, the Municipal Committee respondent No.4 did not accept the prayer for exemption and though part of amount already paid was refunded, some amount remained to be refunded and a direction was required to be issued to the respondents not to charge octroi duty in view of the policy. 3. In reply to the writ petition, stand of the State of Punjab is that the petitioner was entitled to exemption from 14.11.1985 to 13.11.1993. Since the petitioner claimed refund for the first time only from 9.12.1989 to 31.12.1989, the same was disbursed to it. Further refund was made on 31.3.1992 as per details mentioned in the reply. It is further stated that the remaining amount will be refunded as per seniority on receipt of funds from the State Government. 4. Stand of the Municipal Committee is that incentive was meant only for a new unit. Unit of the petitioner-company was set up in the year 1979 but its registration was on 14.11.1985 from which date it could avail exemption. 5. When the petition came up for hearing on 22.7.1992, while admitting the writ petition, interim order was granted against demand of octroi upto 13.11.1993 in view of the stand of the respondents that till that date, no octroi duty was payable. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in Molins of India Limited v. State of 2 CWP no.1894 of 1992 Punjab, 1986 RRR 251, which was followed by a Single Bench of this Court in M/s Punjab Display Devices Limited v. State of Punjab, 1993 (1) RRR 465, holding that as per industrial policy, exemption from octroi duty was available for eight years from the date of registration. 8. Learned counsel for the State also does not dispute entitlement of the petitioner to exemption for a period of eight years from 14.11.1985. Accordingly, interim order against recovery of octroi from the petitioner upto 13.11.1993 is made absolute. As regards claim of the petitioner for refund, Municipal Committee, Barnala is directed to finalise the same within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order in accordance with law. 9. The petition is disposed of. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge September 28, 2010 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3