Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 1012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
S.J. VAZIFDAR, HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, JJ.
M/s Challen International (India) Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 9859 of 2010 (O&M), Civil Writ Petition No. 11097, 14325, 14326, 14380, 14527, 14529, 14883, 23910 of 2014, 826 of 2015
Decided On : 10-08-2017
For the Petitioners: Mr. H.L. Tikku, Mr. Sumeet Goel, Ms. Manju Goel, Mr. Keshav Gupta, Mr. Tushar Sharma, Mr. Sandeep Jasuja.
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate for HSIIDC.
For the Respondent: Mr. RKS Brar
Entitlement to rebate under the Industrial Policy-1999 and the notification dated 11.11.1999 is not solely based on the commencement of commercial production, but also on compliance with the terms and conditions of the Letter of Allotment and the law. Violations or breaches may result in denial of the rebate only if they hinder sustained and continued commercial production, thereby defeating the purpose of the Industrial Policy-1999 and the notification.
Headnote:
Rebate - Industrial Policy-1999 - 11th November, 1999 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The judgment discusses the Industrial Policy-1999 and the notification dated 11.11.1999 issued by the Industries Department of the State of Haryana. It interprets the conditions for granting rebate equivalent to 20% of the land cost to industrial units starting commercial production within 3 years of offer of possession of industrial plots. The court emphasizes that entitlement to rebate is not based merely upon the commencement of commercial production, but also on compliance with the terms and conditions of the Letter of Allotment and the law. The judgment highlights the objectives of the Industrial Policy-1999, emphasizing sustainable economic development and increased employment in the industrial sector. It also discusses the relevance of violations and breaches in determining entitlement to the rebate.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the rejection of their claim for rebate under the Industrial Policy-1999 and the notification dated 11.11.1999. The petitioners claimed entitlement to rebate for setting up industries and commencing commercial production within the stipulated period. The respondents rejected the applications for rebate citing various grounds, leading to the filing of writ petitions seeking a mandamus to pay the rebate with interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that entitlement to rebate is not solely based on the commencement of commercial production, but also on compliance with the terms and conditions of the Letter of Allotment and the law. The court emphasized that violations or breaches may result in denial of the rebate only if they hinder sustained and continued commercial production, thereby defeating the purpose of the Industrial Policy-1999 and the notification. The court set aside the impugned orders rejecting the rebate and directed the authorities to consider each petitioner's case on merits in accordance with the law and observations made in the judgment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement to rebate under the Industrial Policy-1999 and the notification dated 11.11.1999. The court addressed whether violations or breaches of the terms and conditions of the Letter of Allotment and the law would affect the entitlement to the rebate, and whether the rebate must be granted irrespective of the nature, manner, and mode of commencement of commercial production.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that entitlement to rebate is not solely based on the commencement of commercial production, but also on compliance with the terms and conditions of the Letter of Allotment and the law. The court emphasized that violations or breaches may result in denial of the rebate only if they hinder sustained and continued commercial production, thereby defeating the purpose of the Industrial Policy-1999 and the notification. The court also highlighted the importance of considering the objectives of the Industrial Policy-1999 and the notification in determining entitlement to the rebate.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned orders rejecting the rebate and directed the authorities to consider each petitioner's case on merits in accordance with the law and observations made in the judgment. The court also directed the authorities to pass fresh orders by a specified date and to pay any amounts found due on account of rebate within a specified timeframe.
S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.
The two main parties in all the petitions are the State of Haryana and the Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC). The other respondents are the office bearers of these respondents.
2. The petitioners have challenged the rejection of their claim for rebate payable under a notification dated 11.11.1999 issued by the Industries Department of the State of Haryana which in turn was in accordance with the State of Haryana’s Industrial Policy-1999. The applications were rejected on various grounds in respect of each of the petitioners. The issue, however, remains the same. The petitions are, therefore disposed of by this common order and judgment.
3. The preamble, objectives and the relevant part of the Industrial Policy-1999 read as under:-
“PREAMBLE
The Indian Government’s liberalization and economic reforms programme aims at rapid and substantial economic growth and a harmonized integration with the global economy. The changing global and domestic environment requires reorientation of the development vision in recognition of the new paradigms that put the industrial policy initiatives in the context of an overarching economic development policy.
The industrial policy statement of 1992 had focused on providing incentives for attracting investment in the industrial sector at a time when the delicensing and reduction in controls had unleashed growth momentum in the national economy. The Industrial Policy of 1997 adopted infrastructure led growth. This industrial policy initiative seeks to consolidate the past progress and lay the foundation of a vibrant economy that focuses on improving the quality of life of its residents. It aims at promoting industrial growth in the context of overall economic development of the State by creating an investor friendly enabling environment that facilitates the industry to move strongly to the front ranks of global competition. The policy further seeks to promote integration of private initiative in the developmental process of the State.
OBJECTIVES
The Industrial policy has the following objectives:
To increase the share of industry in the Net/Gross State Domestic Product by attracting new investments and growth of existing industry.
To increase the employment in Industrial and Allied sector by 20% in the next five years.
To attain sustainable economic development through catalysis of investments in all sectors of the economy.
To achieve larger value addition within the State thereby contributing to a higher quality of life.
SIMPLIFICATION OF ESTATE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES
“Suitable rebate on land cost shall be given to those entrepreneurs who start commercial production in their units within 3 years of offer of possession of industrial plots…………..” (emphasis supplied)
4. The Industrial Policy-1999 was followed by a notification dated 11.11.1999 issued by the Industries Department of the State of Haryana which specified the rebate. The relevant part thereof reads as under:-
“INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION
11th November, 1999
No.2/I/22-IIB-II-99-With a view to streamlining the procedure of allotment, transfer/leasing/renting of industrial plots and sheds developed by Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation and Directorate of Industries and to ensure better utilization of infrastructure and speedy industrialization, the Governor of Haryana is pleased to order following Estate Management Procedures.
PAYMENT TERMS
(i) 10% with application
(ii) 15% within 30 days of issuance of allotment letter.
(iii) Remaining 75% in 5 equal 6 monthly installments starting from the date of offer of possession.
(iv) Interest 18% shall be charged on the balance outstanding only after offer of possession is made.
Rebate equivalent to 20% of the land cost shall be given if the industrial unit starts commercial production within 3 years of offer of possession of industrial plot.
N
