JUDGMENT
Inder Sen Israni, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that application submitted by the petitioner for giving benefit of Sales Tax Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1987 (for brevity, “the Scheme, 1987”) may be given to it, which has been denied, on account of bar of limitation.
2. It is submitted by Mr. Singhal, learned counsel, that the petitioner-firm established a new unit for manufacturing the marble tiles and slabs, which went into production on July 5, 1986. The petitioner was granted provisional registration certificate (annexure 1) under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (for short, “the Act, 1954”) from November, 1985, which was made permanent thereafter. The petitioner also submitted an application on July 20, 1987 (annexure 2), under the Scheme, 1987. This application was returned vide letter dated October 31, 1987 (annexure 3) to the petitioner, on account of several defects in the same. Thereafter, again, Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme, 1989, was announced and the petitioner submitted another application on December 28, 1989 (annexure 4). The District Level Committee informed the petitioner vide letter dated August 31, 1990 (annexure 5) that, since the unit of the petitioner falls in 1985 Dispensation Scheme, therefore, the benefit under the Scheme of 1989 is not available to the petitioner. It was further mentioned that if the petitioner desires, the matter, regarding giving benefit of Incentive Scheme, 1987, can be considered, to which the petitioner agreed vide letter dated September 10, 1990 (annexure 6). However, the General Manager, District Level Committee, vide letter dated November 23, 1990 (annexure 7) informed the petitioner that the application for getting the benefit of Scheme, 1987 should have been filed on or before November, 1987. Since the application has been filed on December 28, 1989, no benefit can be given to the petitioner.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner, in the first instance, filed application within time, which could not have been returned to it, but the petitioner could have been called upon to remove the defects. It is further submitted that there is no provision in the Scheme, 1987, for returning the application, on account of any defects. Another application was filed late, because it was announced by the department that fresh incentive scheme will be announced, therefore, the petitioner wanted to know the details of the New Scheme of 1989, before which, it may make choice of getting the benefit either under the 1987 Scheme or under the new scheme, 1989.
4. It is submitted by Mr, Bapna, learned counsel, that from the details mentioned above, it is evident that the application filed by the petitioner was late by two years. The department had fixed a date, before which applications could be made. There was no provision in the 1987 scheme for entertaining applications, which were filed late. Therefore, the application was rightly rejected. It is further submitted that the department has right to announce fresh schemes in the manner it deems fit for giving incentive/benefits to the newly established industries. It is also submitted that no cause whatsoever has been shown for the delay involved in making the application. It is pointed out that in the new scheme, 1989, a provision has been made for extending the limit of applying, keeping in view reasons of the delay, but this provision was not available as already pointed out in the 1987 scheme. It is also pointed out that if such provisions are liberally construed, the economy of the State will be adversely affected.
5. I have heard both the parties and gone through the documents on record. The only point to be considered is whether it will be appropriate to condone the delay in filing the application. It is evident from the facts stated above that the petitioner did file application, in the first instance, within limitation. This was returned, pointing out certain defects. These schemes are framed with a view to give incentive to the newly established industries/ units. If the provisions of such schemes are construed too strictly, the purpose for which such schemes are framed, cannot be achieved. In Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 66 STC 228, it was held by the apex Court that, if there is sufficient cause, the delay should be condoned. It seems that the Government has itself realised that it is necessary to put a clause for considering the condonation of delay in filing the application, as has been done now in the new scheme of 1989. Such provision, however, was not available in the Scheme, 1987. In this case, the application, in the first instance, was filed in time for getting the benefit of the scheme, 1987. The appropriate way of dealing with it would have been to call upon the petitioner to remove the defects, rather than to return the application to it. In Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. v. State of Bihar [1988] 68 STC 158, it was observed by the apex Court that the procedural requirements should be construed liberally. In the matter under consideration, the application was filed within time and there’ is no doubt that the removal of defects in the application is only a matter of procedure. In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Strawboard Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1989] 177 ITR 431, it was observed by the apex Court that when law provides for concession for tax purposes with a view to encourage industrial activity, the provisions should be construed liberally.
6. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the application of the petitioner deserves to be considered, ignoring the delay in filing the application beyond limitation. The delay is condoned. The District Level Committee and other concerned authorities are, therefore, directed to consider and decide the application of the petitioner, on merit, within a period of three months.
7. The writ petition is allowed, with no order as to costs.