REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6709 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.17118 of 2006)
M/s. G.P. Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. ... Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, Trade Tax, UP. ... Respondent
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Interpretation and/or application of an exemption notification dated
27.7.1991 is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and
order dated 10.7.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
in Trade Tax Revision No.141 of 1999.
3. The admitted fact of the matter is as under:
2
Appellant is a private limited company registered under the Indian
Companies Act. It started a new unit on plot Nos.C-28 and C-29, Industrial
Area.
The Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation
(UPSIDC) on or about 14.3.1991 and 11.7.1991 allotted plot No.C-28 and
C-29, Industrial Area, Orai in the district of Jalaun in favour of respondent.
An agreement for lease was executed in its favour on 18.9.1992 by the
UPSIDC for setting up a unit for manufacture of fire bricks and B.P. sets.
Appellant commenced production in the said unit on and from 15.9.1992. It
was registered as a small scale unit with effect from 29.9.1992. The first
sale of the finished product was made on 24.10.1992.
It filed an application claiming exemption from payment of trade tax
on the turn over of manufactured products in Form 46 before the Sales Tax
Authorities on 12.3.1993 said to be within the stipulated period of six
months from the date of first sale.
The Sales Tax Authorities, however, asked for a copy of the deed of
lease. The application was also returned to the appellant by the said
authority on 4.6.1993 purportedly for the purpose of removing to remove
the said objection.
3
A copy of the deed of lease was furnished to him only on or about
16.4.1994.
4. The fact that the appellant is entitled to exemption from payment of
trade tax is not in dispute. However, whereas according to the appellant it
was entitled to such exemption for a period of 10 years from 24.10.1992 to
23.10.2002, the respondents contend that having regard to the fact that a
copy of the deed of lease was furnished to him only in 1994, it was entitled
to exemption for the period 16.4.1994 to 23.10.2002.
5. Aggrieved by an order dated 21.8.1995 of the Additional Director,
Industries, Jhansi Division granting an eligibility certificate in favour of the
appellant only in respect of the period from 16.4.1994 to 23.10.2002, a
review application was filed thereagainst, which was rejected by an order
dated 27.7.1996. Appellant preferred two separate appeals against the
aforementioned orders dated 21.8.1995 and 27.7.1996 before the Uttar
Pradesh Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow which were marked as Appeal No.93
of 1996 and 81 of 1996 respectively. The said appeals were dismissed by
the Tribunal by an order dated 19.2.1999.
6. The High Court by reason of the impugned judgment has dismissed
the revision application filed by the appellant herein.
4
7. Appellant is, thus, before us.
8. Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, would submit that the High Court as also the Tribunal committed
a serious error in so far as they failed to construe the provisions of the UP
Trade Tax Act and the Rules framed thereunder as also the form in which
the application for exemption is required to be filed in their proper
perspective as in terms thereof there was no necessity to supply a copy of
the deed of lease, as, admittedly, the land in question has been allotted in
favour of the appellant by the PUSIDC, a Corporation of the State of Uttar
Pradesh. Alternatively, it was submitted that as the deed of lease was lying
with UP State Industrial Development Corporation which is a Financial
Corporation owned by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, the appellant could
not file the same within the stipulated period and, thus, the authorities must
be held to have acted arbitrarily in reducing the period of exemption from
ten years to eight years.
9. Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent, on the other hand, would contend that from a bare perusal of the
provisions of the Act as also the Rules, it would be evident that when an
allotment is followed by a lease for a period of more than five years, it is
incumbent for the applicant to supply a copy thereof, failing which the
5
application would be treated to be incomplete, the consequence whereof is
that eligibility certificate could be granted only from the date when the
application became complete in all respects and not from a date prior
thereto.
10. The State of Uttar Pradesh enacted UP Trade Tax Act, 1948 (the Act)
to provide for the levy of tax on the sales or purchase of goods in Uttar
Pradesh.
11. Section 4A of the Act provides for exemption from payment of Trade
Tax in certain cases. We may notice the relevant provisions thereof :
“Section 4-A–Exemption from trade tax in
certain cases–(1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act, where the State Government
is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do for
increasing the production of any goods or for
promoting the development of any industry in the
State generally or in any district or parts of district
in particular, it may on application or otherwise, in
any particular cases or generally, by notification,
declare that the turnover of sales in respect of such
goods by the manufacturer thereof shall, during
such period not exceeding fifteen years from such
date on or after the date of starting production as
may be specified by the State Government in such
notification, which may be the date of the
notification or a date prior or subsequent to the
date of such notification, and where no date is so
specified from the date of first sale by such
manufacturer, if such sale takes place within six
months from the date of starting production, and in
any other case from the date following the
6expiration of six months from the date of starting
production, and subject to such conditions as may
be specified, be exempt from trade tax on sale of
goods whether wholly or partly or be liable to tax
at such reduced rate as it may fix:
Provided that in respect of goods manufactured in
a new unit having a fixed capital investment of
five crore rupees or more or in an existing unit
which may make fixed capital investment of five
crore rupees or more in expansion, diversification,
modernisation and backward integration or in any
one of them, within such period not exceeding five
years as may be specified in the notification, the
exemption from or reduction in the rate of tax may
be granted.
(2) It shall be lawful for the State Government to
specify in the notification under sub-section (1)
that the exemption from, or reduction in the rate of
tax, shall be admissible–
(a) ...
(b) in respect of such of those goods only as are
manufactured in a new unit, the date of
starting production whereof falls on or after
the first day of October, 1982; or
XXX XXX XXX
(d) only if the manufacturer furnishes to the
assessing authority an Eligibility Certificate
granted by such officer, in accordance with
such procedure, as may be specified ;
XXX XXX XXX
(5) A manufacturer shall be entitled to the facility
of exemption from, or reduction in the rate of tax,
notified under sub-section (1)–
7
(a) if he applies for such facility within six
months from the relevant date of
commencement of the period of facility
referred to in that sub-section or within six
months from the date of notification issued
under that sub-section or by September 30,
1992, whichever expires later, for the entire
period notified under that sub-section;
(b) if he applies for such facility later than the
date specified in Clause (a) only for part of
the period notified under subsection (1);
which shall be computed from the date of
the application and not from the relevant
date of commencement of the period of
facility referred to in sub-section (1) till the
end of the period of facility;
(c) in relation to a new unit referred to in
Explanation (1), where the conditions
specified in Clauses (a) to (d) of the said
Explanation (1) are fulfilled on a date later
than the date of commencement of the
period of facility notified under subsection
(1), then subject to the provisions of Clause
(b), only for part of the period, notified
under sub-section (1), which shall be
computed from the date on which all the
conditions referred to in the said Clauses (a)
to (d), have been fulfilled or July 20, 1992
whichever is later, till the end of the period
of such facility, so however, that a
manufacturer who was eligible for such
facility under Clause (c) as it stood prior to
July 20, 1992 and had applied for the
facility prior to the said date, shall be
entitled to the facility in accordance with the
said Clause (c).
(d) in relation to a new unit manufacturing
same goods established on or adjacent to the
site of an existing factory or workshop by a
8
person who has interest in the existing
factory or workshop as proprietor or partner
or agent or managing director or promoter
director or as holding company or
subsidiary company, if the production of the
existing factory or workshop is not less than
the base production:
Provided that if the production of the
existing factory or workshop falls short of
the base production, the turnover of sale of
the new unit to the extent of the quantity
covered by such short fall from base
production shall be liable to tax.”
12. Admittedly, the State of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of its rule making
power under the Act framed Rules known as Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax
Rules, 1948.
Chapter V of the said Rules deals with the exemption of dealers under
Section 4. Rule 25 of the said Rules reads as under :
“25. Grant of eligibility certificate –
(1) (a) The application for grant of eligibility
certificate by a new unit or a unit which has
undertaken expansion, diversification, backward
integration or modernization shall be submitted in
Form No ST-XLVI (in six copies in case of units
with fixed capital investment upto rupees five per
form lakhs and in eight copies in cases of units
with a fixed capital investment exceeding rupees
five per form lakhs), to the General manager,
9District Industries Centre of the District, in which
the unit is situated and in the case of unit situated
in any Industrial Development Authority Area to
the Area Development Officer (industry) of the
said Authority.
(b) The General Manager, District Industries
centre or Area Development Officer (Industry) of
the concerned Industrial Development Authority
may require the unit to furnish any additional
information within sixty days of the receipt of an
intimation in this regard.
(c) If the application is incomplete or does not
contain the required information, the unit may be
asked to complete the application or furnish the
required information within 60 days of the receipt
of an intimation in this regard. If the unit fails to
complete the application or furnish the required
information mentioned in clause (b) within the
prescribed time, the date on which the application
is completed or the information or the additional
information is furnished shall be treated as the
date of application of such unit.”
13. The form prescribed for filing an application for exemption by the
new units is prescribed in Form 46, clause 10 of which reads as under :
“10. Title of land or building-
(a) Self-owner (Enclose the attested
copy of title deed).
(b) Taken on lease (Enclose the attested
copy of registered lease
deed).
(c) allotted by (Enclose the attested
Government or a copy of such allotment
10
Or a Corporation letter)"
A Company owned
Or controlled by the
Government.
14. The State of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification on or about 27.7.1991
for grant of exemption, inter alia, from payment of tax to new units set up,
the relevant provisions whereof read as under :
“2B. The facility of exemption from or reduction
in the rate of tax shall be subject to the following
conditions in addition to the conditions referred to
in section 4-A of the Act.
(i) that the `new unit’ is licensed or in respect whereof a
letter of intent has been issued, or which is registered,
permanently or otherwise, by the appropriate authority in
accordance with any law for the time being in force
relating to licensing or registration of such units;
(ii) that the new unit is established on land or building or
both owned or taken on lease for a period of not less than
fifteen years by such unit or allotted to such unit by the
State or the Central Government or any Government
Company or any Corporation owned or controlled by the
Central or the State Government;
(iii) that the exemption from tax or, as the case may be,
reduction in the rate of tax shall be admissible only in
respect of such goods manufactured by the unit and such
by-products and waste products as are mentioned in the
eligibility certificate issued to such unit under Section 4-
A of the Act;
(iv) that the said unit furnishes to the assessing authority
concerned an eligibility certificate granted in this behalf
by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Area
11
Development Officer (Industry) of the concerned
Industrial Development Authority, Additional or Joint
Director of Industries of the range or Additional or Joint
Director, Industries of the concerned Industrial
Development Authority, as the case may be.”
15. Before we advert to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for
the parties we may place on record that the contention of the appellant
herein before us is that as the appellant had taken loan from PICUP on the
basis of an equitable mortgage created, the deed of lease could not be
produced prior to 16.4.1994.
16. Indisputably, the grant of exemption from payment of trade tax for
the specified period in favour of owner of a new unit was to be granted on
the basis of the eligibility certificate. An eligibility certificate was granted
in favour of the appellant by the Additional Director, Industries Jhansi
Division, Jhansi for the period 16.4.1994 to 23.10.2002 by an order dated
21.8.1995, inter alia, on the premise that a copy of the deed of lease was
filed by the appellant only on 16.4.1994.
17. The sole question which, thus, arises for our consideration is as to
whether in a case where land has been allotted in favour of an industrial
undertaking which was followed by execution of the deed of lease, supply
12
of a copy of the letter of allotment should satisfy only the requirements of
the statutory provisions or a deed of lease was also required to be produced.
18. Section 4-A provides for grant of exemption. Such exemption is to
be granted if an application is filed within the period of six months from the
date of first sale. If the land in question on which the unit is constructed has
been the subject matter of lease, the applicant was required to file a copy
thereof. If the first sale takes place within six months from the date of
starting production, the benefit of the exemption shall be given from the
date of first sale. Clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 4-A, however,
empowers the State Government to specify in the notification issued under
sub-section (1) that the exemption from payment of trade tax would be
admissible, inter alia, only if the manufacturer furnishes to the assessing
authority an eligibility certificate granted by such officer in accordance with
such procedure as may be specified. Clause (a) of sub-section (5) of Section
4-A stipulates that a manufacturer shall be entitled to the facility of
exemption for the entire period notified under sub-section (1) only if the
application is filed within six months from the relevant date of
commencement of the period of facility referred to in sub-section (1) or
within six months from the date of notification issued under that sub-
section, or by 30th September, 1992 whichever expires later. Clause (c) of
13
sub-section (5) provides that in relation to a new unit referred to in
Explanation (1) where the conditions specified in clauses (a) to (d) of the
said Explanation (1) are fulfilled on a date later than the date of
commencement of the period of facility notified under sub-section (1), the
period for grant of exemption shall be computed from the date on which all
the conditions referred to in the said clauses (a) to (d) of the said
Explanation have been fulfilled or July 20, 1992 whichever is later till the
end of the period of such facility, so however, that a manufacturer, who was
eligible for such facility under clause (c) as it stood prior to July 20, 1992
and had applied for the facility prior to the said date, shall be entitled to the
facility in accordance with the said clause (c). We are not concerned with
the Explanations appended thereto.
19. We have, however, noticed that Explanation (2) under Section 4-A
defines `new unit’ as under :
“`New Unit’ after March 31, 1990 means a factory
or workshop set-up by a dealer after such date and
satisfying the conditions laid down under the Act
or Rules made therein. It would include an
industrial unit, inter alia, on the site of an existing
factory or workshop.”
Certain conditions have been appended thereto which exclude the
factory or workshop from the purview of the said definition.
14
20. It is also relevant to note that when an application is filed, the
requisite information therefor is to be furnished as provided in clause 10 of
Form 46.
21. It is in the aforementioned backdrop, the notification dated 27.7.1991
and, in particular, paragraph 2B thereof is required to be construed. The
fact that the appellant was entitled to grant of exemption is not in dispute. It
is also not in dispute that a statutory corporation has allotted a land in its
favour on which the unit was started. It is furthermore not in dispute that
the first sale from the said unit had taken place on 24.10.1992 and
application in the prescribed form has been filed on 12.3.1993, i.e., within a
period of six months therefrom.
22. Section 4-A of the Act does not provide for any procedure for filing
of an application. The procedures are laid down in the Rules. For the
purpose of grant of eligibility certificate, the conditions attached thereto,
inter alia, are that an application must be filed in the prescribed form. Such
an application is required to be filed in eight copies and indisputably the
said condition has been complied with.
23. The power of the General Manager to ask for any additional
information within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of
intimation in this behalf is also not in dispute. Clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of
15
Rules 25 of the Rules assumes importance as the only bone of contention
between the parties is as to whether the additional information required was
furnished within the time specified. If the unit in terms of clause (c) fails to
complete the application or fails to furnish the additional information within
the prescribed time, the date on which the application is completed or the
additional information is furnished shall be treated as the date of application
of such unit.
24. There cannot, however, be any doubt that the said Rule has to be read
with Section 4-A, particularly, clauses (b) and (d) of sub-section (2) thereof.
25. The incidental question which would arise for our consideration is as
to whether if in terms of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder, the
appellant was not required to supply a copy of the deed of lease, failure on
his part to supply a copy of the deed of lease would attract clause (c) of sub-
rule (1) of Rule 25 or not.
26. The eligibility criteria is contained in the notification. Sub-clause (ii)
of Clause 2B of the notification envisages three contingencies, i.e., (i) the
unit is established on land or building or both owned by the dealer; or (ii)
the unit is established on land or building or both taken on lease for a period
of not less than 15 years; or (iii) the unit is established on land or building
or both allotted to such unit by the State or the Central Government or any
16
Government company or any Corporation owned or controlled by the
Central or the State Government.
Indisputably, the plots in question had been allotted by PUSIDC, a
State Government Corporation on or about 14.3.1991 and 11.7.1991.
27. We may, for proper appreciation of the respective contentions of the
parties, notice the relevant portion of one of the said letters of allotment
which reads as under :
“With reference to your application dated
21.2.1991 allotment of land in our industrial area
orai at Jaloun we have allotted to you plot No.C-
28 in our industrial Area orai site No.2 at Jaloun
in the conditions noted below for setting up an
industrial unit to manufacture Fire Brieks.
1. The area of the plot is 3875 sq. mtr. The
precise measurement and the area of the land
in the plot is as per site plan attached
herewith.
2. The date of this letter will be treated as the
date of allotment of the above plot in your
favour.
XXX XXX XXX
5. You will utilize minimum 30% area of the plot by
covering it by roof/permanent shed with the specified
period as contained in the Licence Agreement/Lease
Deed, failing which the allotment of the plot(s) will be
cancelled.
6. It will be your sole responsibility to get NOC from
UP/CB (UP Pollution Control Board) and if it is not
17
furnished to this Corporation, you will be liable for
Action. According to Law and UPSIDC would not be
responsible for any of your act for omissions which
may be in contravention in the U.P. Pollution Control
Board rules environmental laws.”
28. It is true that an instrument of lease was entered into on 18.9.1991
whereby a lease for a term of 90 years was executed on 28.10.1991.
29. It is, however, one thing to say that the order of allotment by a
statutory corporation was followed by execution of a deed of lease but it is
another thing to say that only because an order of allotment is followed by
execution of a deed of lease, the documents in regard to both were required
to be furnished.
30. The eligibility criteria are laid down in the notification, which, as
noticed hereinbefore, provide for three contingencies. They are disjunctive
in nature and not conjunctive. It is now a well settled principle of law that a
subordinate legislation must be read in the context of the main statutory
enactment. It is also well established that when a form is prescribed in
terms of the Rules, in case of doubt or dispute, the requirements laid down
in the form may also be taken into consideration for proper construction of
the provisions of the Rules and consequently the statutory enactment.
18
Paragraph 10 of the Form 46 relates to the title of the land or building.
Whereas in the case of lease an attested copy of the registered deed of lease
is required to be enclosed along with the application, in the case of
allotment by Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the
Government, only enclosure of the attested copy of such allotment letter
subserves the purpose. The letter of allotment dated 14.3.1991, inter alia,
provides that the said date was to be treated as the date of allotment of the
plots referred to therein in favour of the appellant. One of the terms of the
said letter of allotment refers to entering into a licence/agreement or a lease
deed and also to utilize minimum 30% area of the plot by covering it with
the roof or permanent shed.
31. The allotment was made for setting up of an industrial unit for
manufacture of fire bricks. Some conditions might have been attached
thereto but in the event such conditions are not fulfilled, the order of
allotment could have been cancelled. When such conditions are satisfied,
indisputably the allotment becomes effective on and from the date of
issuance of the letter of allotment.
32. It is now a well established principle of law that whereas eligibility
criteria laid down in an exemption notification are required to be construed
strictly, once it is found that the applicant satisfies the same, the exemption
19
notification should be construed liberally. {[See Commissioner, Trade Tax,
U.P. v. DSM Group of Industries [(2005) 1 SCC 657 para 26]; Tata Iron &
Steel Co. Ltd. V. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [(2005) 4 SCC 272 para 42 to
45]; State Level Committee & Anr. v. Morgardshammar India Ltd. [(1996)
1 SCC 108]; Novopan India Ltd., Hyderabad v. Collector of Central Excise
& Customs, Hyderabad [1994 Supp.(3) SCC 606]; A.P. Steel Re-Rolling
Mill Ltd. V. State of Kerala & Ors. [(2007) 2 SCC 725]; and Reiz
Electrocontrols (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I [(2006)
6 SCC 213].
33. The learned counsel for the parties, however, have drawn our
attention to two decisions of this Court construing Section 4-A of the UP
Sales Tax Act itself.
We, therefore, think it proper to refer thereto. In State Level
Committee & Anr. v. Morgardshammar India Ltd. [(1996) 1 SCC 108], the
question which arose for consideration before this Court was construction of
Explanation (i) to Section 4-A(2) using both the expressions `already used’
and `acquired for use’ simultaneously to hold that they should not be
considered to be carrying the same meaning, stating :
“It must be remembered that no unit has a right to
claim exemption from tax as a matter of right. His
right is only insofar as it is provided by Section 4-
20
A. While providing for exemption, the Legislature
has hedged it with certain conditions. It is not
open to the Court to ignore those conditions and
extend the exemption.
11. It is suggested by the learned counsel for the
respondent that Section 4-A must be literally (sic
liberally) construed to further the object
underlying it. In case of any ambiguity, it is
submitted, the construction favouring the assessee
should be adopted. We cannot agree. Section 4-A
provides for exemption from tax. It is repeatedly
held by this Court that a provision providing for
an exemption or an exception, as the case may be,
has to be construed strictly.”
However, in Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. v. DSM Group of
Industries [(2005) 1 SCC 657], another Bench of this Court opined that
when an application for exemption is filed for an expansion or
diversification, Explanation 5 appended to Section 4-A(6) specifying the
word `unit’ must receive a liberal construction to include not only a new
unit but also a nuit which is sought to be expanded, modernized or
diversified, stating :
“25. …As seen above, the term “unit” has the
meaning as defined in Section 4-A. As we have
already seen, Section 4-A defines the term “unit”
to mean an industrial undertaking, which has
undertaken expansion, modernisation and
diversification. Even under the General Clauses
Act, where the context so requires the singular can
include the plural. A plain reading of the
notification shows that for “expansion,
21
modernisation and diversification” it is the
industrial undertaking which is considered to be
the “unit”. This is also 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 Gupta’s 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
22
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
23
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
24
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 impugned judgment cannot be
sustained. It is set aside accordingly. Respondents are directed to extend
the benefit of exemption to the appellant for a period of 10 years from
24.10.1992. The appeal is allowed with costs. Counsel’s fee assessed at
Rs.50,000/-.
25
……………………………….J.
[S.B. Sinha]
……………………………….J.
[Cyriac Joseph]
New Delhi;
November 19, 2008