1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION (S.T.) NO.332/2003 (M/s Hindustan Marbles & Minerals Industries Vs. D.L.S.C. & Ors.) Date of order : 03.09.2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Vinay Kothari, for the petitioner. Mr. V.K. Mathur, for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this revision petition, the order of Tax Board dated 4.10.2002 is under challenge. So also, it is prayed that the Tax Board / District Level Screening Committee may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of exemption under the Sales Tax Exemption Scheme, 1998 in the category of new industrial unit. The case of the petitioner firm is that an application was filed for claiming tax incentive under the Scheme so framed by the Government of India known as RST/CST Exemption Scheme, 1998. As per learned counsel for the petitioner firm, the purpose of granting tax incentive is clear from the scheme itself. The petitioner firm inadvertently filed an 2 application in form No.A-2 in the expansion category but in fact the petitioner firm is entitled to get the tax incentive as per the scheme of 1998 under the category of new industrial unit. For the said purpose after filing the application form No.A-2 in the expansion category, another application Annexure-9 in the category of new industrial unit was filed during the pendency of earlier application which is said to be filed under the category of expansion. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of deciding the petitioner's claim for tax incentive, the District Level Screening Committee was to consider his case under the category of new industrial unit because earlier by mistake the application was filed in the expansion category while submitting form No.A-2, therefore, the District Level Screening Committee has committed a gross error while rejecting the application of the petitioner firm while considering his case under the category of expansion only. Further, it is argued that the learned Tax Board also committed an error while rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of tax incentive under the Scheme of 1998. I have perused the order passed by District Level Screening Committee as well as the order passed by learned Tax Board. 3 In para-6 of the order passed by learned Tax Board, it is specifically observed that the D.L.S.C. Rejected the appellant's claim for tax incentive on the ground that the petitioner's firm did not fulfill the requirement of expansion under the scheme, so also, the petitioner – firm is accepting that it is not entitled for tax incentive under the category of expansion but subsequent application was filed by the petitioner-firm under the category of new industrial unit was to be considered because mere filing wrong application by mistake does not bar the petitioner firm to claim the tax incentive as per the Scheme so framed by the Central government in the year 1998. Upon this argument, it is observed by learned Tax Board that perusal of application and copy of the project report filed by the appellants reveals that they applied for sanctioning the benefit of tax exemption on the proposed expansion of their existing unit. Further, the project report clearly brings out the fact that they wanted to make additional investment over and above the existing one which is generally done in case of expansion. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that they in fact applied for claiming tax incentive for the new industrial unit but inadvertently filled a wrong application form does not appear to be established on the basis of facts available on record. 4 After perusal of both the orders passed by D.L.S.C. and learned Tax Board, I am of the opinion that once an application is filed under the particular category is required to be decided by the authorities concerned in the said category in which it is applied by the Firm. As per the petitioner's case he has filed wrong application and during the pendency of the said application for grant of tax incentive under the category of expansion, a subsequent application was filed claiming tax incentive under the category of new industrial unit. I am in full agreement with the orders passed by D.L.S.C. and the learned Tax Board that the petitioner Firm is not entitled for tax incentive under the category of expansion as per the Scheme of 1998. Further, upon perusal of the order passed by learned Tax Board, it is not established that any subsequent application was filed under the category of new industrial unit under which now the petitioner firm is claiming for benefits of tax incentive under the Scheme of 1998. In this view of the matter, no error has been committed by District Level Screening Committed and the learned Tax Board while deciding the application filed by the petitioner firm under the category of expansion. Further, if any subsequent application is filed by the petitioner-firm then, the petitioner firm is free to pursue that application. But, in this revision petition, no case is made out for 5 interference in the orders passed by District Level Screening Committee, Rajsamand and the learned Tax Board. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun