Case: G.P. Ceramics Pvt. Ltd Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax, UP

clear from the fact that in the notification wherever the words "expansion, modernisation or diversification" are used, there are no qualifying words to the effect "in any one unit". In none of the clauses is there any requirement of the investment being in one unit of the industrial undertaking. Words to the effect "in a particular unit" or "in one unit" are missing. To accept Mr Sunil Guptas submission would require adding words to a notification which the Government purposely omitted to add.26. Even otherwise, the purpose of notification being to encourage increased production and to give benefit to industries which have invested rupees fifty crores or more in the State and whose production has thus increased, an interpretation must be given which would extend benefit to such industries. There would be no purpose in denying an industry which has invested rupees fifty crores or more and whose production in the State has as a result increased, the benefit of the exemption granted by this notification merely because the whole of the investment is not in any particular unit. Thus even where the investment is made by the Company in more than one unit, so long as the total investment is rupees fifty crores or more, the benefit of the notification would be available. Such benefit would then be distributed in the manner set out in the schedule depending on where a unit in which expansion, diversification or modernisation has taken place, is situated. Thus, for example, in respect of the units situated in Barabanki and Moradabad, the benefit would be to the extent of 200% of the fixed capital investment in those units, whereas in respect of units in Bijnore the benefit would be to the extent of 150% of the fixed capital investment in that unit. Similarly, the base production and the starting date of production could be in respect of those units.However, it is the Company which has made the investment. It is the Company which is paying the tax. It is the Company which would be getting the benefit of the exemption. The manner in which the Company gets the benefit would be as set out hereinabove." 34. We do not see any conflict in the ratio laid down in the aforementioned two decisions. The question of applying the principle of strict or liberal interpretation would arise only when the plain meaning attached thereto is found to be absurd or anomalous. If a plain meaning given to the provision for the purpose of considering as to whether the applicant had fulfilled the eligibility criteria as laid down in the notification or not is found to be clear, purpose and object the notification seeks to achieve must be given effect to. 35. The State by enacting Section 4-A of the Act and Rule 25 of the Rules intended to encourage setting up of new industries. Such industrial units, however, were required to be set up either on the land owned by the applicant or taken on lease for a period of not less than five years or on the land allotted. However, so far as the land allotted in favour of the applicant by the State or State owned Corporation or statutory Corporation is concerned, no period is required to be fixed under the law. What is required is an allotment of land by issuance of a letter of allotment. Execution of a deed of lease may be a condition for grant of allotment but the grant is not subject to the date of lease or the period specified therein. The statutory rule as also the notification point out a clear distinction between a deed of lease which may be obtained from a private person and the letter of allotment granted by the State or statutory Corporation . The reason for making such a distinction is not far to seek. Whereas in the case of the former, a registered deed of lease is required to be executed if it is for a period of more than one year, in the latter it is not. 36. An exception has been made as regards allotment of land by the State or a statutory corporation. The exemption is being granted by the State. Eligibility certificate is also to be granted by the Industries Department. Each department is supposed to be in touch with the other department of the State or the statutory corporation. The authorities would be in a position to verify the particulars of the letter of allotment furnished by the applicant from the concerned department or statutory corporation. It was not necessary for the authorities of the Industries Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh to obtain any additional information. When an additional information is required to be sought for, it must be done when the information furnished by the applicant is not complete or otherwise required. It is not in dispute that the attested copies of the letters of allotment had been furnished. If the same subserved the statutory requirements, we do not see any reason as to why the appellant should not be held to be entitled to grant of exemption for the entire period of ten years beginning from 24.10.1992 to 23.10.2002. 37. It is not a case where the application was incomplete by itself. It was also not a case where having regard to the provisions of the Act, Rules, Notifications as also the information required to be furnished in terms of paragraph 10 of Form 46, any other or further information was necessary to be obtained or furnished. If the appellant, thus, had fulfilled the eligibility criteria for grant of exemption, it had acquired a right in respect thereof and we see no reason why it should have been deprived therefrom. It is in that sense the exemption notification was required to be construed liberally in favour of the appellant. {See State of Orissa & Ors. V. TATA Sponge Iron Ltd. [(2007) (8) SCC 189 para 21]. 38. For the reasons aforementioned, the

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]We do not see any conflict in the ratio laid down in the aforementioned two decisions. The question of applying the principle of strict or liberal interpretation would arise only when the plain meaning attached thereto is found to be absurd or anomalous. If a plain meaning given to the provision for the purpose of considering as to whether the applicant had fulfilled the eligibility criteria as laid down in the notification or not is found to be clear, purpose and object the notification seeks to achieve must be given effectState by enacting Section 4-A of the Act and Rule 25 of the Rules intended to encourage setting up of new industries. Such industrial units, however, were required to be set up either on the land owned by the applicant or taken on lease for a period of not less than five years or on the land allotted. However, so far as the land allotted in favour of the applicant by the State or State owned Corporation or statutory Corporation is concerned, no period is required to be fixed under the law. What is required is an allotment of land by issuance of a letter of allotment. Execution of a deed of lease may be a condition for grant of allotment but the grant is not subject to the date of lease or the period specified therein. The statutory rule as also the notification point out a clear distinction between a deed of lease which may be obtained from a private person and the letter of allotment granted by the State or statutory Corporation . The reason for making such a distinction is not far to seek. Whereas in the case of the former, a registered deed of lease is required to be executed if it is for a period of more than one year, in the latter it isexception has been made as regards allotment of land by the State or a statutory corporation. The exemption is being granted by the State. Eligibility certificate is also to be granted by the Industries Department. Each department is supposed to be in touch with the other department of the State or the statutory corporation. The authorities would be in a position to verify the particulars of the letter of allotment furnished by the applicant from the concerned department or statutory corporation. It was not necessary for the authorities of the Industries Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh to obtain any additional information. When an additional information is required to be sought for, it must be done when the information furnished by the applicant is not complete or otherwise required. It is not in dispute that the attested copies of the letters of allotment had been furnished. If the same subserved the statutory requirements, we do not see any reason as to why the appellant should not be held to be entitled to grant of exemption for the entire period of ten years beginning from 24.10.1992 to