{"id":105755,"date":"2008-06-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-vs-state-on-27-june-2008"},"modified":"2016-03-21T20:08:08","modified_gmt":"2016-03-21T14:38:08","slug":"bharat-vs-state-on-27-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-vs-state-on-27-june-2008","title":{"rendered":"Bharat vs State on 27 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Bharat vs State on 27 June, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: Y.R.Meena And J.C.Upadhyaya, J.C.Upadhyaya<\/div>\n
  \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n \n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/15730\/2007\t 29\/ 37\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 15730 of 2007\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 19369 of 2006\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nTHE CHIEF JUSTICE Y.R.MEENA\n \n\n  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA\n \n======================================\n<\/pre>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
To
\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the
\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n<\/p>\n
======================================<\/p>\n
BHARAT
\nFOODS CO-OPERATIVE LTD. & 1 – Petitioner(s)<\/p>\n
Versus<\/p>\n
STATE
\nOF GUJARAT & 3 – Respondent(s)<\/p>\n
======================================
\nAppearance
\n:\n<\/p>\n
MR KS NANAVATI for NANAVATI
\nASSOCIATES for Petitioner(s) : 1 – 2.\n<\/p>\n
MR KAMAL TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE
\nGENERAL with MS SNAGEETA VISHEN, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
\nNOTICE
\nSERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 –\n<\/p>\n
4.
\n======================================<\/p>\n
CORAM
\n\t\t\t:\n<\/p>\n
HONOURABLE
\n\t\t\tTHE CHIEF JUSTICE Y.R.MEENA<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
HONOURABLE
\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA<\/p>\n
Date
\n: 27\/06\/2008 <\/p>\n
CAV
\nCOMMON JUDGMENT <\/p>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA)<\/p>\n
\t\tRule.\n<\/p>\n
 Service of rule is waived by Ms. Sangeeta Vishen, Ld. AGP  for the
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tLearned
\ncounsels for the parties requested to hear and decide both the
\nmatters by way of common judgment as the facts and issues involved in
\nthe petitions are identical and common.  Hence both the petitions are
\nbeing decided and disposed by this CAV Common Judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThe
\npetitioners filed present petition \u00fd  Special Civil Application No.
\n15730 of 2007  under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek
\nthe following reliefs against the respondents :-\n<\/p>\n
\u00fdS(A)\tYour
\nLordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the
\nnature of mandamus or direction or order quashing and setting aside
\nthe decision taken by the State Level Committee, respondent no. 3, in
\nits meeting dated 5.6.2007 [Annexure-Y] and conveyed to the
\nsociety by the Additional Industries Commissioner, vide its letter
\ndated 5.6.2007 [Annexure-A] and be further pleased to direct
\nthe respondents to grant Sales Tax exemption to the petitioners for
\nthe amount of Eligible Capital Investment made by the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
(A1)\tYour
\nLordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the resolution dated
\n9.11.2005 [Annexure-M1]  or in the alternative be pleased to
\nhold and declare that the said resolution is not applicable to the
\ncase of the present petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
(B)\tPending
\nadmission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be
\npleased to restrain the respondent No. 4 from levying and collecting
\nor recovering sales tax from the petitioners;\u00fd\u00fd<\/p>\n
1.1.\t\tThe
\npetitioner no. 1 is Bharat Foods Cooperative Ltd., and petitioner no.
\n2 Mr. S K Handa, is Member and Managing Director of the petitioner
\nno. 1 \u00fd  Cooperative Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tThe
\nfacts leading to the petition, in nut-shell, are as under :-\n<\/p>\n
2.1.\t\tThe
\npetitioner no. 1 is a Cooperative Society registered and incorporated
\nunder the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 [for short ‘the
\nAct’].  On 26.01.2001  there was a devastating earthquake which hit
\nDistrict Kutch of the State of Gujarat. Because of the said natural
\ncalamity, the economic activities in Kutch District came to a
\nstandstill.  With a view to create new employment opportunity and for
\nattracting industries in Kutch District,  the respondent no. 1 \u00fd
\nState of Gujarat and its Department of Industries and Mines, by way
\nof resolution No. INC-10200-903-1 dated 9.11.2001 announced a scheme
\nof sales tax incentive titled as \u00fdSIncentive Scheme 2001 for the
\nEconomic Development of Kutch District\u00fd\u00fd and by way of the said
\nscheme, any existing industrial undertaking or a new industry setting
\nup a unit in Kutch District was eligible for the benefit of sales tax
\nexemption or sales tax deferment on  eligible fixed capital
\ninvestment. As per the scheme, a cooperative society setting up a
\nunit for refining of edible oil\/hydrogenation of edible oil is
\neligible for sales tax incentive. Initially the scheme was operative
\ntill 31.12.2004. However, by subsequent resolution, it was extended
\ntill 31.12.2005.\n<\/p>\n
2.2.\t\tThe
\nGovernment of Gujarat issued notification under section 49 of the
\nGujarat Sales Tax Act [for short ‘GST Act’] on 31.12.2001 whereby
\nexemption from sales tax was granted to eligible unit as defined in
\nthe scheme. The petitioner no. 1 society was registered and
\nincorporated on 11.09.2003 under the Act. The area of operation of
\nthe society extended upto the States of  Gujarat, Maharashtra and
\nMadhya Pradesh. On 10.11.2003 the petitioner society applied to the
\nState Government for obtaining certain clarifications regarding the
\nscheme before constructing a plant for refining of edible
\noil\/hydrogenation of edible oil in Kutch District. Pursuant to the
\napplication of the petitioner,  vide order dated 10.11.2003 passed in
\nexercise of powers under section 62 of the GST Act, the Deputy
\nCommissioner of Sales Tax [Legal] held that the petitioner was
\neligible for availing the sales tax incentives under the scheme.
\nThereupon, on 16.09.2004 the petitioner society applied for
\nregistration under the scheme. Since no prompt action was taken by
\nthe State, the petitioner society sent reminders for registration on
\n1.11.2004, 2.11.2004, 28.1.2005, 9.2.2005, 16.2.2005, 7.3.2005,
\n29.4.2005, 2.5.2005, 13.6.2005, etc. Yet the respondents did not
\ngrant registration to the petitioner society to avail the benefits of
\nthe scheme. However, in the month of December 2004, the plant of the
\npetitioner society was ready to start commercial production. The
\nplant was set up by investing more that Rs.32 crore. The State Level
\nCommittee [for short ‘SLC’] in its meeting held on 5.5.2005  held
\nthat Industries Commissioner would send a proposal to the State
\nGovernment  to amend the scheme so as to restrict the benefits only
\nto the cooperative societies of edible seed growers. Accordingly,
\nIndustries Commissioner had sent a proposal to the State Government,
\nbut no such amendment was made by the State Government in its
\noriginal scheme. As no decision was taken by the respondent \u00fd  State
\non application for registration made by the petitioners,  the
\npetitioners were constrained to prefer Special Civil Application No.
\n13040 of 2005. In the said petition, on 21.07.2005 a statement was
\nmade by the Ld. AGP  who was representing the respondents, upon
\ninstructions from the Joint Industries Commissioner that the
\nGovernment will take decision in the matter as early as possible and
\npreferably by 31.08.2005. Thereafter, vide  different letters,
\nrespondents sought for certain information from the petitioner
\nsociety regarding the members of the society, their vocation, source
\nof earnings of the society, etc.   The said details were immediately
\nsupplied to the respondents. Despite this, no decision was taken till
\n30.09.2005. In the result, the petitioners preferred Civil
\nApplication No. 9355 of 2005 in Special Civil Application No. 13040
\nof 2005.  In the said Civil Application, this Court directed that the
\npetitioners would be entitled to enter into commercial production
\nwithout payment of any sales tax till final disposal of the main
\npetition. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, the
\npetitioner society commissioned the plant and vide letter dated
\n21.10.2005 applied for eligibility certificate for eligible capital
\ninvestment of Rs.30,93,76,043\/-. However, on 21.10.2005 the
\nrespondent no. 2 \u00fd  Joint Industries Commissioner informed the
\npetitioners that their application for registration under the scheme
\nwas rejected by the respondent no. 3 \u00fd  SLC on the ground that under
\nsection 29 of the Act, a person  whose business is in conflict or
\ncompetitive with business of society    is not eligible to be a
\nmember of the society. However,  in the pending petition, the
\naforesaid decision of the respondent no. 3 – SLC  was withdrawn by
\nthe respondents by way of a statement made before this Court on
\n28.10.2005 and this Court disposed of Special Civil Application No.
\n13040 of 2005 on 28.10.2005 with a direction that the Industries
\nCommissioner shall issue eligibility certificate to the petitioner
\nlatest by 11.11.2005 and thereafter, the parties would be entitled to
\nproceed in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
2.3.\t\tOn
\n29.10.2005 the registration was granted to the petitioner society as
\ncontemplated under the scheme and on 11.11.2005 eligibility
\ncertificate was issued in favour of the petitioner. Eligible
\ninvestment was considered to the tune of Rs.27,76,06,000\/-. However,
\nin para. 4 of the eligibility certificate  it was mentioned that the
\ncertificate was issued provisionally at the rate of 25% of the
\ntentative eligibility as detailed verification of assets was to be
\ncarried out. On 30.11.2005 exemption certificate under section 49(2)
\nof the GST Act was issued by the Sales Tax Commissioner in favour of
\nthe petitioners. Thereafter, a team comprising of Additional
\nIndustries Commissioner, Joint  Industries Commissioner, etc.,
\nvisited the plant of the petitioner at Kutch and its registered
\noffice situated at Mumbai and administrative office situated at
\nIndore for inspection. They also visited and met the members of the
\npetitioners, the financial institution that had granted loans,
\ndealers, etc., and recorded their statements. On the basis of the
\nsaid inquiry,  report was submitted by the team to SLC on 27.09.2006.
\n From the report, it was evident that an extensive and detailed
\ninquiry was conducted by the respondents to find out whether the
\nsociety was genuine or was promoted by any company as a firm to
\nobtain tax exemption benefits.  At the end of such inquiry, the
\ncommittee concluded that it has not found that the society was not
\ngenuine or it has been set up by any company or group.  Despite the
\nfact that the petitioner society was found to be genuine, the SLC in
\nits meeting dated 30.03.2007 decided that prima-facie the petitioner
\nsociety was not entitled to the benefits under the scheme, there was
\nonly one farmer member in the society and the purpose of the scheme
\nwas to give benefit to the society formed by farmers. Despite the
\nfact that the SLC took the said decision on 30.03.2007, the
\nIndustries Commissioner did not convey the same nor called the
\npetitioner no. 2 for hearing.  Thereafter, on 16.5.2007 the
\nIndustries Commissioner informed the petitioners that the SLC was of
\nthe prima-facie opinion that the petitioner society was not eligible
\nfor the benefit under the scheme as it had no farmer member.
\nMeanwhile, the petitioners were constrained to file Special Civil
\nApplication No. 12776 of 2007 and in said petition, on behalf of
\nrespondents, statement was made before this Court that the
\npetitioners shall be heard on 31.5.2007 by the Industries
\nCommissioner and till then, the respondents will not make any
\ncoercive recovery. This Court in its order observed that it was
\naccepted that the order passed by the SLC would be communicated to
\nthe petitioners and before initiating coercive recovery,  the
\npetitioners would be granted reasonable time for challenging order of
\nthe committee in case the same was adverse to the petitioners. The
\npetitioners appeared before the Industries Commissioner and submitted
\nits reply\/representation. On 8.7.2007 the petitioner society received
\na letter from the Additional Industries Commissioner stating that the
\nrepresentation of the petitioners was considered by the SLC  on
\n5.6.2007 and the SLC was of the opinion that the benefit under the
\nscheme was available only to such cooperative society of farmer
\nmembers and as there was no agriculturist member in the petitioner
\nsociety, the petitioner society was not eligible under the scheme
\nand, therefore, the application of the petitioner under the scheme
\nwas rejected. Hence, the present petition is filed.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tLearned
\nsenior counsel Mr. KS Nanavati for the petitioners submitted that the
\nimpugned decision of the SLC taken in its meeting held on 5.6.2007
\nholding that the petitioners are not eligible for the incentives
\nunder the scheme is not only contrary to the scheme itself but the
\nsame is illegal, void and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
\nof India. That by impugned decision, the SLC tried to interpret the
\nscheme in the manner not provided in the scheme itself, but contrary
\nto the objectives of the scheme. That the main ground on  which the
\npetitioners are denied the benefits under the scheme is that none of
\nthe members of the petitioner society are farmers. That as a matter
\nof fact, considering the scheme, copy of which is produced at
\nAnnexure-C in this petition, in the definition of \u00fdSindustrial
\nenterprises\u00fd\u00fd,  ‘registered
\ncooperative society’  is also
\nincluded.  Annexure-C attached to the scheme contains list of banned
\nindustries.  As per entry no. 3 \u00fd  solvent extraction of oil from
\nedible seed\/edible oil cake processing and\/or hydrogenation of edible
\noil falls within the purview of ‘banned industries’.  But the
\nexception is , ‘a cooperative sector’.  Therefore, if the unit is a
\ncooperative sector, dealing with the item referred in item no. 3 in
\nthe schedule, such cooperative society is eligible for the benefit of
\nthe scheme.  That neither in the scheme itself nor in any of the
\nschedules attached to the scheme, it is referred that the cooperative
\nsociety  having farmers as its members can only avail benefits of the
\nscheme. Considering the objects behind introducing the scheme, it is
\nclearly set forth in the scheme itself that because of the
\ndevastating earthquake occurred on 26.1.2001 in the State of Gujarat,
\nthe adversely affected area was district of Kutch. That in the area
\nof Kutch  new employment opportunities could be created if new
\ninvestment takes place. That the Government was committed to attract
\nthe industries in Kutch district to make industrial and economic
\nenvironment live. That even Government of India has announced excise
\nduty exemption for new industries to promote large-scale investment
\nin the district. That, therefore, State Government has also decided
\nto announce the scheme of sales tax incentives. It is further stated
\nin the scheme that since the scheme is aimed at making economic
\nenvironment of Kutch district live,  it has been decided to confine
\nthe same only to Kutch district. That, therefore, the object behind
\nthe scheme was not to promote agricultural activities in the district
\nor to render benefits only to farmers adversely affected by
\nearthquake in the district. The main object was to create new
\nemployment opportunities and to make the industrial and economic
\nenvironment live in the district.  That therefore, to deny the
\nbenefits of the scheme solely on the ground that none of the members
\nof the petitioner society is farmer  can be said to be an illegal and
\narbitrary exercise of powers by the State contrary to the scheme
\npromulgated by the State itself.  That if at all the object behind
\nfloating of the incentive scheme was to give benefits to such
\ncooperative society having farmer members, then there was no reason
\nwhatsoever by subsequent amendment in the scheme dated 9.11.2005 to
\ndelete cooperative sector mentioned at item no. 3 in Annexure-C
\nattached to the scheme.  If at all the intention of the State was to
\nbenefit the farmers, instead of deleting the cooperative sector as a
\nwhole dealing in oil seeds unit, the State could have further
\nqualified the word \u00fdScooperative sector\u00fd\u00fd
\nby stating that such cooperative sector having farmers as its members
\ndealing in oil seeds unit, are only entitled to the benefits of the
\nscheme. That instead of this, by subsequent amendment in item no. 3
\nof list of banned industries Annexure-C attached  to the scheme, the
\nentire cooperative sector itself is deleted.\n<\/p>\n
3.1.\t\tMr. Nanavati
\nfurther submitted that before erecting a plant in Kutch district  the
\npetitioner society sought for further clarification from the State
\nGovernment and as a matter of fact, the Deputy Commissioner of Sales
\nTax in an order dated 10.11.2003 passed under section 62 of the GST
\nAct, has determined that the benefit of the scheme was available to
\nthe petitioner cooperative society. The petitioner society has
\ncomplied with all the conditions incorporated in the scheme. That,
\ntherefore, the respondents cannot deny the benefits of the scheme.
\nEven the respondent \u00fd  State is estopped from denying the benefits
\nto the petitioner society. That even doubt was raised by the
\nrespondents regarding the genuineness of the formation of the
\npetitioner cooperative society,  but upon inquiry   it was revealed
\nthat the petitioner society was genuinely formed cooperative society
\nand was not backed by any company. Mr. Nanavati further submitted
\nthat the impugned order dated 6-8.6.2007 is also illegal in view of
\nthe fact that the same was passed contrary to the statement made by
\nthe Industries Commissioner before this Court on 28.10.2005. The
\nSpecial Civil Application No. 13040 of 2005 was pending. While
\ndisposing of said petition by order dated 28.10.2005  Mr. Agarval,
\nIndustries Commissioner and Mr. Mehta, Joint Commissioner \u00fd
\nIndustries, submit that the eligibility certificate shall be issued
\nin favour of the petitioners latest by 11.11.2005. It was further
\nstated before this Court that earlier order passed by the SLC may be
\nignored and the authorities be allowed to proceed in the matter as
\nsuggested by them. That surprisingly  thereafter, by the impugned
\norder  the benefit was denied to the petitioner by the State
\nauthorities.  That relying upon the scheme as well as the clear
\nopinion expressed in writing by the responsible officer of the Sales
\nTax Department of the State, the petitioner invested more than Rs.32
\ncrore in erecting the plant. The plant was ready for production by
\nDecember 2004. Subsequently, despite the fact that clear directions
\nwere issued by this Court in earlier writ petition and unconditional
\nstatements made by responsible officers of the State Government
\nbefore this Court, by virtue of the impugned decision, the State
\ndenied the benefits of the scheme to the petitioner. That the
\nauthorities of the State acted upon the order passed by this Court on
\n28.10.2005 in earlier writ petition and eligibility certificate was
\nissued, said order was not challenged by the State before the Hon’ble
\nApex Court, therefore, said order has become final. Yet surprisingly
\nthe request of the petitioner to accord sales tax benefits to the
\npetitioner society in accordance with the scheme was denied solely on
\nthe flimsy ground that its members are not farmers. That thus, a very
\ndiscriminatory treatment is given to the petitioners by the State.
\nTherefore, it is submitted that the petition be allowed as prayed
\nfor.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tLearned Advocate
\nGeneral Mr. Kamal Trivedi vehemently opposing the petitions,
\nsubmitted that the petitioners are not at all entitled to obtain the
\nrelief as prayed for by them in the petition.  In this petition, this
\nCourt is concerned with the scheme dated 9.11.2001. The very object
\nbehind the scheme was to motivate the cooperative societies, which
\nare formed by the farmers connected with\/engaged in the activities of
\nagricultural production of oil seeds in Kutch district. In para. 9 of
\nthe scheme, it is clearly provided that the resolution with regard to
\nany interpretation, dispute or argument of the scheme shall be made
\nby the SLC. That therefore, any interpretation of the scheme made by
\nany officer of the Sales Tax Department of the State cannot be looked
\ninto. The only power was that of the SLC to interpret any of the
\nprovisions of the scheme and its decision can be said to be final. In
\nthe instant case, denying the benefits of the scheme to the
\npetitioner society, SLC in its meeting dated 5.6.2007 clearly opined
\nthat none of the members of the petitioner society  is connected
\nwith or engaged in the agricultural production of oil seeds and,
\ntherefore, even though the petitioner society is a cooperative
\nsociety having solvent extraction plant, it is not entitled to the
\nincentive benefits. That this interpretation is final and given by
\nthe authority empowered to interpret in the scheme itself. That while
\nexercising judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution,
\nthis Court cannot substitute its own interpretation that the
\nprovision of the scheme should have been interpreted in the manner
\nrequested by the petitioners. That subsequently, the cooperative
\nsector was removed as a whole from the purview of the scheme by
\namendment dated 9.11.2005. That the interpretation of the scheme made
\nby the SLC in its 3rd meeting held on 5.5.2005 was
\nimmediately conveyed to the petitioner society. That thus, the
\npetitioner society was conveyed right from the inception that it
\nwould not be entitled to the said incentive benefits.  That
\ntherefore, in the instant case  there is no question of any
\npromissory estoppel to be applied against the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
4.1.\t\tMr. Trivedi further
\nsubmitted that the scheme promulgated by the Government Resolution
\ndated 9.11.2001 is not a notification issued under any statutory
\nprovisions and that therefore, the same cannot by any stretch of
\nimagination be  considered to be a statutory instruction granting
\nexemption.  That while interpreting any non-statutory instruction
\nlike the present Government Resolution, the understanding of the
\nauthority issuing such an instruction or the authority responsible
\nfor executing the policy, propounded by such instruction, should
\nalways be relied upon, as per the well established rule of
\n\u00fdScontemporanea expositio\u00fd\u00fd.  It is submitted that even otherwise
\npublic interest requires that a cooperative society like the
\npetitioner society should not be allowed to earn the incentive
\nbenefits of sales tax exemption since the same is not meant for such
\na cooperative society. That the doctrine of promissory estoppel
\nshall not apply in the present case, but assuming without admitting
\nthat doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable, then in that case
\nalso, such a direction would not be enforceable against the State
\nGovernment when it comes in the way of public interest, since public
\ninterest has to prevail over the private interest.  That in a
\njudicial review, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of
\nthe SLC regarding the interpretation of the scheme.  This Court
\ncannot examine whether particular policy is desirable or not.\n<\/p>\n
4.2.\t\tMr. Trivedi further
\nsubmitted that admittedly the figures given in the ad-hoc eligibility
\ncertificate in respect of capital investment made by the petitioner
\nsociety in its solvent extraction plant are figures supplied by the
\npetitioner society itself and no inquiry as regards its correctness
\nor otherwise has so far been made and, therefore, such figures should
\nnot be presumed to be correct figures unless inquired into and
\ncertified to that effect by the State authorities, which may have to
\nbe done only in the event of the petitioner finally succeeding in
\nthis petition.  While concluding the arguments, Mr. Trivedi submitted
\nthat none of the actions on the part of the State Government and its
\nauthorities is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and,
\ntherefore, the petition does not survive. It would be in the public
\ninterest to reject the petition since other cooperative  societies
\nwhich have also applied during the pendency of the scheme for the
\nincentive benefits of sales tax exemption are waiting for the outcome
\nof the proceedings and that, therefore, grant of any relief in favour
\nof the petitioners would open up the flood gate and also would invite
\nhuge burden on the State exchequer. Therefore, it is submitted that
\nthe petition be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tConsidering the
\npetition as well as reply affidavit filed by Mr. G.C. Bhavsar, Under
\nSecretary to the Government of Gujarat, Industries and Mines
\nDepartment and the scheme dated 9.11.2001, the admitted fact is that
\nin the scheme   it is nowhere expressly provided that so far as the
\ncooperative sector is concerned, only such cooperative sector having
\nfarmers as its members can only avail of the benefits of the scheme.
\nConsidering para. 3 of the scheme, definitions are given and while
\ndefining ‘industrial enterprises’, ‘a legally registered cooperative
\nsociety’ is also included in the definition of ‘industrial
\nenterprises’. There is also no dispute that the petitioner no. 1
\nsociety is a registered society, registered and incorporated under
\nthe Act. The petitioner no. 1 society was registered as such on
\n11.9.2003 under the Act. Annexure-C attached to the scheme contains
\nlist of banned industries. Item no. 3 reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
\u00fdS1.\t\txxx\t\txxx\t\txxx\t\txxx<\/p>\n
2.\t\txxx\t\txxx\t\txxx\t\txxx<\/p>\n
3.\tSolvent extraction of
\noil from edible seed\/edible oil cake processing and\/or hydrogenation
\nor edible oil ( except in co-operative sector),<\/p>\n
4 to 10.\txxx\t\txxx\t\txxx\u00fd\u00fd
\n\t[emphasis supplied].\n<\/p>\n
5.1.\t\tThus, the solvent
\nextraction of oil from edible seed\/edible oil cake processing and\/or
\nhydrogenation of edible oil falls within the sweep of ‘banned
\nindustries’ contained in Annexure-C, but the only exception is if the
\nunit dealing in such items is a cooperative sector, then such
\ncooperative sector will not fall within the purview of ‘banned
\nindustries’.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tThere is no dispute
\nthat before the petitioner no. 1 society commenced establishment of
\nits unit in Kutch district, on 25.9.2003,  petitioner sought for
\ncertain clarifications regarding its eligibility to get sales tax
\nexemption in accordance with the scheme and, therefore, an
\napplication was forwarded by it to the concerned Department of the
\nState Government. The application was replied by the Deputy
\nCommissioner of Sales Tax [Legal], Government of Gujarat, on
\n10.11.2003, copy of which is produced at Annexure-E at page 63 along
\nwith the petition. It is stated therein that although the industries
\nmanufacturing products specified in item 2 and 3 referred to in
\nAnnexure-C containing list of ‘banned industries’ attached to the
\nscheme dated 9.11.2001 fall within the purview of ‘banned
\nindustries’, but if the unit is in cooperative sector, then
\nproduction by such cooperative sector cannot be construed as ‘banned
\nindustries’. That the applicant [petitioner no. 1 \u00fd  society herein]
\nwas engaged in manufacturing of Vanaspati [hydrogenated oil],
\nSoyabean oil, edible refined oil and allied products  which
\ncommodities prima-facie fall under the list of banned industries as
\nspecified in Annexure-C to the scheme dated 9.11.2001, but if the
\nproducts specified in item 2 and item 3 of the list are manufactured
\nby a unit  which  is in a cooperative sector, then such unit shall
\nnot be construed as banned industries. Thus, the query raised by the
\npetitioner society regarding applicability of the provisions of the
\nscheme to the petitioner society was satisfactorily replied by the
\ncompetent authority of the State Government and the petitioner
\nsociety was held to be entitled to the benefits of the scheme.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tIn the rejoinder
\naffidavit, much is said that as per the scheme only the SLC is
\ncompetent to interpret any of the provisions of the scheme as per
\npara. 9 of the scheme and, therefore, any interpretation of the
\nscheme  arrived at by any authority of the State other than the SLC
\nshall have to be ignored.  Perusing para. 9 contained in the scheme,
\nit is true that SLC is authorized to interpret any provision
\ncontained in the scheme.  In the instant case, considering Annexure-E
\npage 63 annexed with the petition, clarificatory application of the
\npetitioner was replied by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax
\n[Legal], Government of Gujarat vide its letter dated 10.11.2003. The
\nmatter pertains to the scheme regarding the sales tax exemption and
\nthe reply was given by none other than the competent authority of the
\nSales Tax Department of the State itself. The concerned Deputy
\nCommissioner of the Sales Tax Department interpreted the scheme as it
\nis revealed by the bare reading of the scheme itself and reproduced
\nonly certain averments made in the scheme as well as in item no. 2
\nand item no. 3 in Annexure-C containing list of banned industries. We
\nneed not repeat here the relevant contents of Annexure-C attached to
\nthe scheme, but suffice it to say that solvent extraction of oil from
\nedible seed\/edible oil cake processing and\/or hydrogenation of edible
\noil  fall within the purview of banned industries, but the only
\nexception is a cooperative sector.  In other words, cooperative
\nsector manufacturing products as specified  above  cannot be
\nconstrued as banned industries.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tLd. Advocate General
\nMr. Trivedi for the respondents relied upon a case of Bavishi &
\nSons v\/s. State of Gujarat  reported in 1992 Sales Tax Cases page
\n161, wherein this Court, in a sales tax reference pertaining to
\ncertain order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, in a
\nparticular assessment period, observed as under :-\n<\/p>\n
\u00fdSEach assessment period
\nis distinct and a decision in respect of one  cannot operate as res
\njudicata in respect of another period.  Therefore, the determination
\nof the rate of tax payable  on a particular sale,  on an application
\nmade to the Deputy Commissioner under section 62 of the Gujarat Sales
\nTax Act, 1969, would not be final for all time to come.\u00fd\u00fd<\/p>\n
\t\tThere cannot be any
\ndispute regarding the principle established by this Court in this
\nruling. However, the facts of our case are totally different. As
\nstated above, by way of caution, before setting up the unit,
\npetitioner sought for clarification regarding the applicability of
\nthe scheme. The query was replied by the competent authority of the
\nSales Tax Department itself. It is true that as per para. 9 of the
\nscheme, SLC is the final authority to interpret any provision of the
\nscheme. However, as stated above, the competent authority,  who
\nreplied the query did  nothing  more than reproducing certain
\naverments made in the scheme as well as in the list attached to the
\nscheme containing list of banned industries. Therefore, there is no
\nquestion of interpretation of any of the provisions of the scheme.
\nDespite this, if at all  the competent authority  who replied the
\nquery of the petitioner felt that some interpretation was required to
\nbe made  pertaining to any provision of the scheme, then before
\nreplying the query, said authority could have referred the matter to
\nthe SLC. Since nothing whatsoever was done and the query was replied
\nin the form of only reproduction of certain clauses contained in the
\nscheme and contained in the list of banned industries. As there was
\nno question of interpreting any of such provisions,  instead of
\nreferring the matter to SLC, the competent authority of the Sales Tax
\nDepartment itself  thought it fit to reply the query.  Therefore,
\nfor such act of the competent authority of the Sales Tax Department,
\ncan the petitioner society be blamed?\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tPerusing the reply
\naffidavit, it transpires that the only short controversy  which is
\ninvolved in this petition is   as to whether such cooperative sector
\nshould be  consisting of farmers as its members or not.  According to
\nthe stand taken by the respondents, it is submitted that it is not
\nsufficient that any cooperative sector is entitled to the exemption
\nfrom the sales tax, but it is further qualified that only such
\ncooperative sector having farmers or agriculturists as its members,
\nthen only such cooperative sector is entitled to the exemption of
\nsales tax dealing in the production of solvent extraction of oil from
\nedible seed\/edible oil cake processing and\/or hydrogenation of edible
\noil. Therefore, the question of controversy centers round the
\nobjectives sought to be achieved by the scheme itself. Whether the
\nscheme was promulgated by the State for any agrarian reforms?  Or
\nwhether the scheme was promoted for industrialization?\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tTo reply this, it is
\nnecessary again to consider the opening paragraph of the scheme dated
\n9.11.2001, copy annexed at Annexure-C at page 38\/1 with this
\npetition. The very reason for launching the scheme was the
\ndevastating earthquake occurred on 26.1.2001 which caused
\ncomparatively serious damage in the district of Kutch. Therefore, it
\nis stated that the entire financial activities of Kutch district came
\nto a standstill. The State Government thought that new employment
\nopportunities could be created if new investment takes place. The
\nState Government was committed to attracting industries in Kutch
\ndistrict to make the industrial and economic environment live.
\nReference was also made to certain steps which were taken by the
\nGovernment of India and it is stated that Government of India has
\nannounced excise duty exemption for new industries to promote large
\nscale investment in Kutch district. Therefore, the State Government
\nhas also decided to announce the scheme of sales tax incentives.
\nSince the scheme was aimed at making economic environment of Kutch
\ndistrict live, it has been decided to confine the same only to Kutch
\ndistrict.\n<\/p>\n
10.1.\t\tTherefore, it can
\nvery well be said that the object of the scheme was to create new
\nemployment opportunities and that object can be achieved if new
\ninvestment takes place.  By giving such sales tax incentives, the new
\ninvestment can be attracted  to and thereby the industrial and
\neconomic environment in Kutch district would become live. Therefore,
\nneither in the preamble of the scheme nor in the entire incentive
\nscheme, there is any mention of giving the benefit only to
\ncooperative societies of farmer members.  Further it is pertinent to
\nnote that as submitted by Ld. Senior Counsel Mr. Nanavati for the
\npetitioners, if the object behind introducing the scheme was
\nagrarian reform as suggested by the respondents, then the respondents
\ncould have introduced suitable amendment in the scheme as well as in
\nthe list of ‘banned industries’  attached to the scheme to the effect
\nthat the cooperative sector should be such having only farmer
\nmembers. That nothing whatsoever was done, but on the contrary, by
\nresolution dated 9.11.2005 [Annexure-M-1 at page 87\/B annexed with
\nthe petition], the scheme was amended and the words mentioned at
\nserial nos. (2), (3) and (5) in the list of ‘banned industries’
\nattached to the scheme \u00fdSexcept in cooperative sector\u00fd\u00fd  were
\ndeleted.  Thus, the cooperative sector itself was deleted by the
\namendment dated 9.11.2005. However,  the amendment was operative
\nwith immediate effect i.e., from 9.11.2005 and onwards. How far this
\namendment would concern to the petitioners  shall be discussed
\nhereafter in this judgment, but in context with the present
\ndiscussion  as to whether the object behind introducing the scheme
\nwas to promote such cooperative sector having farmer members or not,
\nit would be pertinent to note that the State Government deleted the
\nentire cooperative sector by introducing the amendment dated
\n9.11.2005. Thus, instead of making suitable amendment in the scheme
\nby further qualifying the cooperative sector having farmer members
\nonly, the entire cooperative sector was deleted out from the purview
\nof the scheme. Therefore, if at all the object behind introducing the
\nscheme was to promote cooperative sector having only farmer members
\nas suggested by the respondents, then suitable amendment to that
\neffect would have been carried out in the scheme. But here is a case
\nwherein on one hand the respondents interpreted the words
\n‘cooperative sector’ as such sector having farmer members only  and
\non the other hand   by subsequent amendment  the cooperative sector
\nas a whole has been deleted out from the purview of the scheme.
\nTherefore, this amendment, which is subsequently carried out in the
\nscheme, acts counter to the arguments advanced by the respondents
\nthat the object of the scheme was to promote cooperative sector
\nhaving farmer members and certain agrarian reforms.\n<\/p>\n
10.2.\t\tLd. Advocate
\nGeneral Mr. Trivedi for the respondents relied upon a case of  Hind
\nPlastics v\/s. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in [1994] 5
\nS.C.C. Page 167.  In para. 17 of said judgment  it is observed as
\nunder about interpretation of statutes and legislative intent :-\n<\/p>\n
\u00fdS17.\tIn this
\nconnection, it is well to remind ourselves that every instrument,
\nstatutory or otherwise, has to be so interpreted as to accord with
\nthe intention of its maker having regard to the language used. True,
\none cannot ignore the actual words used and go after the supposed
\nintention of the maker \u00fd  as pointed out in Hansraj Gordhandas v.
\nH.H. Dave, Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs<\/a> \u00fd
\nsince that would amount to entering the arena of speculation but all
\nthe same the principle is unexceptionable that whether it is statute,
\n statutory instrument or an ordinary instrument, the interpretation
\nplaced has to accord with the intention of the maker as evidenced by
\nthe words\/language used. The decision in Hansraj Gordhandas
\ndoes not lay down any contrary proposition.\u00fd\u00fd<\/p>\n
10.3.\t\tThus, according to
\nthe ratio laid down in this case by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is
\ntrue that every instrument, statutory or otherwise, has to be so
\ninterpreted as to accord with the intention of its maker,  but at the
\nsame time such interpretation has to be arrived at having regard to
\nthe language used.  It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Apex
\nCourt that one cannot ignore the actual words used and go after the
\nsupposed intention of the maker.   In the present case on hand, as
\ndiscussed in detail above, considering the plain language used in the
\nscheme, there is nothing that the words ‘cooperative sector’  are
\ndefined as the sector having only farmer members. Needless to say
\nthat the arguments advanced by the respondents that the object and
\nintention of the scheme was to promote cooperative sector having
\nfarmer members only go contrary to the subsequent amendment carried
\nout in the scheme by deleting the words \u00fdScooperative sector\u00fd\u00fd as a
\nwhole from the scheme.  The plain reading of the scheme, as discussed
\nabove,  would clearly establish that the main object or intention of
\nthe scheme was to create new employment opportunities in Kutch
\ndistrict by attracting industries to be established in the district
\nand thereby to make the industrial and economic environment live in
\nKutch district. Therefore, the principle established in the  case of
\nHind Plastics [supra] does not help the respondents considering the
\nfacts of our case.\n<\/p>\n
10.4.\t\tMr. Trivedi, Ld.\n<\/p>\n
Advocate General relied upon a case of  State of Karnataka v\/s.
\nBalaji Computers reported in [2007] 2  S.C.C. Page 743.   In
\nthe said case, the State of Karnataka  issued certain notification
\nunder the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 regarding certain tax
\nexemption wherein  \u00fdScomputer and parts of computer peripherals\u00fd\u00fd
\nwas the subject matter of controversy.  Hon’ble the Apex Court held
\nthat the parts of computer and parts of computer peripherals were
\ncovered and, therefore, stand exempted from turnover tax.  In para.
\n39 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under :-\n<\/p>\n
\u00fdS39.\t\tThis Court in K.\n<\/p>\n
P. Varghese v. ITO  while considering the binding nature of the
\ncirculars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on the
\nDepartment, has also observed that the rule of construction by
\nreference to contemporanea expositio is a well-established rule for
\ninterpreting a statute by reference to exposition  it has received
\nfrom contemporary authorities, though it must give way where a
\nlanguage of the statute is plain and unambiguous.   …….\u00fd\u00fd<\/p>\n
10.5.\t\tThus, though the
\nHon’ble Apex Court observed that contemporanea expositio is a well
\nestablished rule for interpreting the statute by reference to
\nexposition it has received from contemporary authorities, it is
\nfurther observed that it must give way where a language of the
\nstatute is plain and unambiguous.   IN the case on hand, as stated
\nabove, there is no ambiguity  whatsoever in the  language used in the
\nscheme dated 9.11.2001. Cooperative sector simplicitor is made
\neligible for avail of the incentive benefits. The object behind
\nintroduction of the scheme was to create new employment opportunities
\nby attracting new investment by giving incentives to certain
\nindustries referred in the scheme including the cooperative sector.
\nThus, in the present case on hand, there is nothing that there is any
\nambiguity or any confusion in any of the words used in the scheme
\nwhich will require any further interpretation. What is required to be
\nread is the plain language used in the scheme.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tLd. Senior Counsel
\nMr. Nanavati for the petitioners relied upon a case  Hansraj
\nGordhandas v\/s. H.H. Dave, Assistant Collector, Central Excise and
\nCustoms, Surat, reported in AIR 1970 S.C.  755.  In that case,
\ncertain notification was issued under the Central Excise Rules, 1944,
\ngranting exemption from excise duty on cotton fabrics. As revealed
\nfrom the plain reading of said notification, for claiming exemption
\nthe cotton fabrics must be produced on power-looms owned by a
\ncooperative society. However, the Customs Department intended to
\ninterpret the notification in the manner that such cotton fabrics
\nshould be produced by cooperative society \u00fdSfor itself\u00fd\u00fd.  On
\nbehalf of the Customs Department  it was also argued that the object
\nof granting exemption was to encourage the formation of cooperative
\nsocieties  which not only produced cotton fabrics, but which also
\nconsisted of members, not only owning but having actually operated
\nnot more than four power looms during the three years immediately
\npreceding their having joined the society.  The Hon’ble Apex Court
\nobserved in para. 5 of the judgment as under :-\n<\/p>\n
\u00fdS ………… We are
\nunable to accept the contention put forward on behalf of the
\nrespondents as correct.  On a true construction of the language of
\nthe notifications dated 31 July, 1959 and April 30, 1960 it is clear
\nthat all that is required for claiming exemption is that the cotton
\nfabrics must be produced on power-looms owned by the co-operative
\nsociety.  There is no further requirement under the two notifications
\nthat the cotton fabrics must be produced by the Co-operative Society
\non the power looms \u00fdSfor itself\u00fd\u00fd. It is well established that in a
\ntaxing statute  there is no room for any intendment but regard must
\nbe had to the clear meaning of the words. The entire matter is
\ngoverned wholly by the language of the notification. If the tax-payer
\nis within the plain terms of the exemption  it cannot be denied its
\nbenefit by calling in aid any supposed intention of the exempting
\nauthority.  …..\u00fd\u00fd<\/p>\n
11.1.\t\tAlmost identical
\nis the factual scenario in our case. In Hansraj Gordhandas [supra],
\nthe Department wanted to interpret the words \u00fdScooperative society\u00fd\u00fd
\nas such having produced cotton fabrics \u00fdSfor itself\u00fd\u00fd.  As per the
\nnotification  the only requirement was that the cotton fabrics must
\nbe produced on power looms owned by the cooperative society. The
\nproduction may be \u00fdSfor itself\u00fd\u00fd or for any third party.
\nInterpreting language used in the notification, the Hon’ble Apex
\nCourt held that the cotton fabrics must be produced on power looms by
\nthe cooperative society and there was no further requirement under
\nthe notification that the cotton fabrics must be produced by the
\ncooperative society on power looms \u00fdSfor itself\u00fd\u00fd. The Hon’ble Apex
\nCourt, therefore, held that in a taxing statute  there is no room for
\nany intendment but regard must be had to the clear meaning of the
\nwords. That the entire matter is governed wholly by the language of
\nnotification.  Therefore, ultimately the Hon’ble Apex Court held that
\nif the tax payer is within the plain terms of the exemption, it
\ncannot be denied its benefit by calling in aid any supposed intention
\nof the exempting authority. Under such circumstances, in our case,
\nthe plain reading of the scheme clearly reveals that the only
\nrequirement for exemption is that the unit must be cooperative sector
\nand nothing more.  There cannot be any supposed intention as
\nsuggested by the respondents that such cooperative sector must be
\n\u00fdShaving farmer members only.\u00fd\u00fd<\/p>\n
12.\t\tTherefore, in the
\nnut-shell, the scheme is required to be considered in accordance with
\nthe language used in the scheme. Hence the words \u00fdScooperative
\nsector\u00fd\u00fd should be considered in accordance with their plain
\nmeaning. Under such circumstances  the report of the SLC stating that
\nout of the total 215 members of the petitioner no. 1 \u00fd  cooperative
\nsociety, 117 members are businessmen, 87 members are doing job, 5
\nmembers are housewives, 4 members are professionals, 1 member is
\nretired person and only 1 member is agriculturist and, therefore,
\nthe petitioner society is not entitled to the sales tax incentives,
\ncannot be accepted as a correct interpretation of the scheme. In the
\nscheme nothing whatsoever is mentioned about the qualification of a
\nmember of the cooperative society made eligible for the sales tax
\nincentives.\n<\/p>\n
13.\t\tIt is pertinent to
\nnote that the genuineness of the petitioner no. 1 \u00fd  cooperative
\nsociety was also doubted by the respondents. Thorough investigation
\nwas carried out by the respondents.  Verification was made as to
\nwhether the said cooperative society is constituted only for getting
\nthe benefit of the benevolent scheme by any big industry or not.
\nDetailed report was prepared and as per the agenda note regarding the
\nmeeting no. 8 of the SLC  dated 3.8.2006, copy produced at Annexure-S
\nat page 112\/1 with the petition,  it was observed that during the
\ninquiry nothing had come-out against the genuineness of the
\npetitioner society or that it was established and backed by any big
\nindustrial unit so as to get the benefit of the scheme.  Under such
\ncircumstances, by this report itself  it becomes clear that the
\npetitioner society was genuinely formed society and was not backed by
\nany big industrial undertaking only with a  view to illegally or
\nimproperly get benefit of the scheme.\n<\/p>\n
14.\t\tPerusing the papers
\nproduced along with the petition, it transpires that even in past
\nthe petitioners were constrained to file petition in this Court.
\nConsidering the copy of order dated 4.10.2005 passed in Civil
\nApplication No. 9355 of 2005 in Special Civil Application No. 13040
\nof 2005, this Court observed that Joint Industries Commissioner
\n[Sales Tax] and Industries Commissioner had assured this Court that
\npreferably by 31.8.2005 the orders regarding entitlement of the
\npresent petitioner would be passed. Despite such assurance, nothing
\nwhatsoever was done and, therefore, the present petitioners had to
\nprefer Civil Application No. 9355 of 2005. Hence in para. 4 of the
\nsaid order dated 4.10.2005 this Court ordered that the petitioner
\nwould be entitled to enter into commercial production without payment
\nof any sales tax till final disposal of the writ petition [Special
\nCivil Application No. 13040 of 2005]. Ultimately, Special Civil
\nApplication No. 13040 of 2005 came to be disposed of by this Court by
\norder dated 28.10.2005 [copy annexed at Annexure \u00fd  M at page 86].
\nConsidering para. 3 of said order, it transpires that Mr. Agrawal,
\nIndustries Commissioner and Mr. Mehta, Joint Commissioner \u00fd
\nIndustries  stated that the eligibility certificate shall be issued
\nin favour of the present petitioners latest by 11.11.2005. They also
\nsubmitted that after issuing eligibility certificate, the
\npetitioners, in accordance with the scheme, may make an application
\nfor grant of permanent certificate to the SLC and the SLC in its
\ndiscretion may pass final orders. Ld. Advocate General submitted that
\nearlier order passed by the Committee may be ignored and the
\nauthorities be allowed to proceed in the matters, as suggested by
\nthem. Accordingly, the petition was disposed of with direction that
\nlatest by 11.11.2005 the Industries Commissioner shall issue
\nnecessary eligibility certificate and thereafter the parties would be
\nentitled to proceed in accordance with law and the rule was made
\nabsolute.  Thus, it is pertinent to note that as per the assurance
\ngiven by the competent authorities of the State Government, the
\neligibility certificate in favour of the petitioners was stated to be
\nissued by 11.11.2005 with further assurance that the earlier order
\npassed by the SLC shall be ignored and the authorities shall proceed
\nin the matters as suggested by them. Ld. Senior Counsel Mr. Nanavati
\nfor the petitioners submitted that the said order has become final
\nand was not challenged by the respondents before the Hon’ble Apex
\nCourt. Upon unconditional statements made by the competent
\nauthorities, this Court disposed of said Special Civil Application
\nNo. 13040 of 2005 on 28.10.2005.\n<\/p>\n
15.\t\tPerusing the papers
\nproduced along with the petition and more particularly Annexure-O at
\npage 89 being copy of eligibility certificate for sales tax incentive
\ndated 11.11.2005, it is certified that the petitioner no. 1 M\/s.
\nBharat Foods Coop. Ltd., has started new unit at Mithi Rohar in
\nTaluka Gandhidham, Dist. Bhuj for sales tax incentives under the
\nscheme. It is further clearly mentioned that the unit has commenced
\ncommercial production from 22.10.2005. The  marketable items produced
\nby the unit are ‘refined edible oil’.   It is further stated in para.
\n5 of the certificate that this eligibility certificate is effective
\nfor the period from 22.10.2005 to 21.10.2012.  However, in para. 4 of
\nsaid certificate, it is stated that this certificate is issued
\nprovisionally at the rate of 25% of its tentative eligibility since
\nthe detailed verification of the assets is to be carried out.  Thus,
\nthe eligibility certificate was issued on 11.11.2005. On behalf of
\nrespondents  it was submitted that since the certificate was issued
\npursuant to the direction issued by this Court, therefore it was
\nissued provisionally and on ad-hoc basis.  However, there is nothing
\nmentioned in the certificate that it is issued subject to the
\ndirections issued by this Court vide order dated 28.10.2005 passed in
\nSpecial Civil Application No. 13040 of 2005. On the contrary, as
\nstated above,  considering the said order dated 28.10.2005  the
\ncompetent authorities stated before this Court that the eligibility
\ncertificate shall be issued on or before 11.11.2005. Relying upon the
\nstatements of the competent authorities, the above Special Civil
\nApplication  came to be disposed of. However, considering para. 4 of
\nthe eligibility certificate, it clearly transpires that since the
\ndetailed verification of assets of the petitioner no. 1 society was
\nyet to be carried out and, therefore, on the basis of the figures of
\nthe assets provided by the petitioner, the certificate was issued
\nprovisionally at the rate of 25% of its tentative eligibility. Ld.
\nSenior Counsel Mr. Nanavati submitted that nothing prevented to the
\nrespondents till date to carry out detailed verification of assets,
\nbut even after issuance of eligibility certificate dated 11.11.2005
\nvide impugned directive dated 6-8.6.2007 as per the decision taken by
\nSLC  in its meeting dated 5.6.2007, the incentive benefits to the
\npetitioner was denied solely on the ground that the members of the
\npetitioner society are not farmers.\n<\/p>\n
15.1.\t\tHowever, the
\nimportant aspect which emerges from the eligibility certificate dated
\n11.11.2005 is that the respondents accepted the factual position that
\nthe petitioner unit has commenced the commercial production from
\n22.10.2005. As observed earlier in this judgment, with effect from
\n9.11.2005 the respondent – State amended the scheme by deleting the
\nwords \u00fdScooperative sector\u00fd\u00fd from the list of banned industries
\nattached to the scheme. However, while refusing the benefits of the
\nscheme to the petitioners, considering the letter dated 6-8.6.2007
\naddressed to the petitioner by the Additional Industries Commissioner
\nand Member Secretary, SLC, the only reason for denying the benefit of
\nthe scheme to the petitioner  assigned is that the members of the
\npetitioner society are not farmer members. The benefit is not denied
\non the ground that by virtue of the resolution dated 9.11.2005
\nregarding the amendment in the scheme, now the cooperative sector as
\na whole came to be deleted and, therefore, the petitioners are not
\nentitled to the incentive benefits. As stated earlier, considering
\nthe resolution dated 9.11.2005, it is clearly stated that the
\namendment in the scheme regarding deletion of cooperative sector as a
\nwhole from the purview of the scheme shall be implemented with
\nimmediate effect, meaning thereby from 9.11.2005 and thereafter. As
\nstated above, in our case the petitioner society had applied for the
\ntax exemption and for registration under the scheme on 16.9.2004.
\nThus, when the petitioner society applied for the registration under
\nthe scheme, there was no such amendment and the amendment was
\nsubsequently made on 9.11.2005. Moreover, no retrospective effect was
\ngiven to the resolution dated 9.11.2005 carrying out amendment in the
\nscheme.  Prospective effect was given to the amendment. Under such
\ncircumstances, it can very well be said that since the petitioner
\nsociety had applied much earlier from 9.11.2005  for registration
\nunder the scheme, it can very well be said that the said resolution
\ncontaining the amendment is not applicable to the case of the
\npetitioner society. When such is the situation, we are of the opinion
\nthat it is not necessary to enter into arena of discussion as to
\nwhether the amendment dated 9.11.2005 resolved by the respondents can
\nbe said to be illegal, improper and violative of any of the
\nfundamental rights of the petitioner or not   since the case of the
\npetitioner is required to be adjudicated in accordance with the
\nscheme which was in effect at pre-amendment stage. Even considering
\nthe letter \u00fd  Annexure \u00fd  Q at page 96\/1 produced along with the
\npetition,  addressed to the petitioner by Commissioner for Industries
\ndated 6.12.2005 and in the letter it is clearly stated that the
\npetitioner unit has been registered from 29.10.2005 for motivation of
\nsales tax incentives. Under such circumstances, not only the
\npetitioner society had applied for registration under the scheme
\nbefore the date of amendment, but even the petitioner society was
\nregistered under the scheme with effect from 29.10.2005, which is
\nalso before the date of the amendment in the scheme.\n<\/p>\n
16.\t\tLd. Senior Counsel
\nMr. Nanavati for the petitioners relied upon a case of  MRF Ltd.,
\nKottayam v\/s. Asstt. Commissioner [Assessment], Sales Tax
\nreported in [2006] 8  S.C.C. 702.  According to the facts of said
\ncase, certain sales tax exemption was granted by notification, but
\nsubsequently by subsequent notification the earlier exemption
\nnotification came to be amended. The question of applicability of
\nprinciple of promissory estoppel against the State and the doctrine
\nof legitimate expectation  arose in said case. As per the initial
\nnotification granting exemption for expansion in the manufacture of
\ncertain products including rubber based goods, the appellant started
\ncommercial production after investing huge amount. Eligibility
\ncertificate was also obtained by said appellant from the competent
\nauthority.  Exemption certificate was also granted for a fixed period
\nof 7 years. In the eligibility certificate the date of commencement
\nof the production was specifically stated.  During the currency of
\nthe period of exemption, the State Government issued amendment
\nnotification excluding the formation of a compound rubber from the
\ndefinition of \u00fdSmanufacture\u00fd\u00fd  for the purpose of the original
\nexemption notification. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that in such
\ncircumstances  the enforcement of the said subsequent notification
\nfrom the date of issuance thereof to the assessee manufacturer in the
\npresent case was barred by the principle of promissory estoppel as
\nwell as by doctrine of legitimate expectation. Moreover, such
\npremature deprivement to the assessee manufacturer of the benefit of
\nexcise was held to be arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and violative
\nof Article 14 of the Constitution of India.   One important aspect
\nwhich emerges perusing said case is that on behalf of the respondents
\nAssistant Commissioner, it was submitted before the Hon’ble Apex
\nCourt that section 10(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act enabled
\nthe State to withdraw or cancel any exemption even retrospectively.
\nIt was also submitted that where public interest was involved, no
\nrule of estoppel could bind the Government. The Hon’ble Apex Court
\nobserved that commercial production of the appellant had already
\ncommenced prior to the date of subsequent notification. That by
\nvirtue of the certificate of eligibility, the appellant \u00fd  MRF Ltd.,
\nhad acquired right to avail tax exemption for a fixed period of 7
\nyears from 30.12.1996 to 29.12.2003 in respect of products
\nmanufactured from raw rubber including compound rubber.  That in the
\neligibility certificate  the date of commencement of the production
\nwas stated to be 30.12.1996. Thus, the Government itself had
\nrecognized that the benefit of tax exemption for the fixed period of
\n7 years would remain available to the units which had fulfilled the
\nprescribed conditions and had obtained the eligibility certificate,
\netc., and had commenced commercial production before the date of any
\namendment.  It was observed that the principle underlying legitimate
\nexpectation was based on Article 14 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
17.\t\tConsidering the
\nfacts of our case, it is clear that the petitioner society had
\napplied for registration on 16.9.2004. The petitioner unit was
\nregistered with effect from 29.10.2005. In the  eligibility
\ncertificate issued in favour of the petitioner, it is clearly stated
\nthat the petitioner unit commenced commercial production from
\n22.10.2005. It is further stated in para. 5 of the eligibility
\ncertificate that this eligibility certificate was effective for the
\nperiod of 7 years from 22.10.2005 to 21.10.2012.  However, the
\nresolution regarding the amendment was subsequently passed on
\n9.11.2005. Thus, the facts and circumstances of our case are almost
\nidentical to the facts and circumstances of the case of MRF Ltd.
\n[supra]. Under such circumstances, it can very well be said that the
\nsaid resolution of amendment is not applicable to the case of the
\npresent petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
18.\t\tLd. Advocate General
\nMr. Trivedi for the respondents submitted that it would be in public
\ninterest to reject the petition since other cooperative societies
\nwhich have also applied during the currency of the scheme for the
\nincentive benefits of sales tax exemption, are waiting for the
\nout-come of this proceedings and that, therefore, grant of any relief
\nin favour of the petitioners would open up the flood gate and also
\nwould invite huge burden on the State exchequer. In  this respect  so
\nfar as the present petition is concerned, we have observed that the
\nlanguage used in the scheme shall have to be considered in its true
\nperspective.  We need not repeat here the  entire above discussion,
\nbut suffice it to say that the reasons assigned by the State
\nGovernment in refusing to grant the sales tax exemption to the
\npetitioner society    that there are no farmer members in the society
\nand, therefore, the benefits are not admissible to the petitioner
\nsociety, cannot be accepted. Such decision of the State Government
\ncan very well be said to be illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and
\nviolative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.  Even such
\ndecision can be said to be contrary to the averments made in the
\nscheme itself. No detailed particulars are supplied by the
\nrespondents as to how many other cooperative societies have been
\ndenied the benefits of the scheme.  Of-course, there may not be any
\nrelevance in this petition of such details for the simple reason that
\neach case has to be decided on its own merits.\n<\/p>\n
19.\t\tIn the result,  the
\ndecision taken by the State Level Committee \u00fd  respondent no. 3 in
\nits meeting dated 5.6.2007 [Annexure-Y page 140\/1 annexed with the
\npetition] and conveyed to the petitioner no. 1 society by the
\nAdditional Industries Commissioner and Member Secretary, State Level
\nCommittee, vide its letter dated 6-8.6.2007 [Annexure-A page 23\/1
\nannexed with the petition],  is  hereby quashed and set aside; and
\nthe petitioner no. 1 society is hereby held to be entitled to the
\nsales tax exemption in accordance with the scheme of the State of
\nGujarat, respondent no. 1, titled as \u00fdSIncentive Scheme 2001 for
\nEconomic Development of Kutch District\u00fd\u00fd dated 9.11.2001.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIt is hereby declared
\nthat the resolution dated 9.11.2005 passed by Section Officer, Mines
\nand Industry Department of the State of Gujarat, pertaining to the
\namendment in the scheme [Annexure- M\/1 page 87\/B annexed with the
\npetition] is not applicable to the case of the present petitioner no.
\n1 society.  However, the entitlement of the petitioner no. 1 society
\nto get the benefits of the \u00fdSscheme\u00fd\u00fd  is subject to strict
\ncompliance of all the terms and conditions laid down in the said
\nscheme dated 9.11.2001 as well as subject to the strict compliance of
\nthe terms and conditions laid down in eligibility certificate for
\nsales tax incentives dated 11.11.2005 and in the annexure attached to
\nsaid certificate [Annexure \u00fd  O pages 89 to 91 annexed with the
\npetition], by the petitioner no. 1 society.  The respondent no. 1 \u00fd
\nState through its competent authority is empowered to carry out due
\nenquiry for detailed verification of assets of the petitioner no. 1
\nsociety as referred to in para. (4) of the eligibility certificate
\nfor sales tax incentives [Annexure \u00fd  O referred above]. The sales
\ntax exemption benefits  which the petitioner no. 1 society shall be
\nentitled to get in accordance with the \u00fdSscheme\u00fd\u00fd and the
\n\u00fdSeligibility certificate\u00fd\u00fd referred to above, shall be subject to
\nthe adjustment of any such benefits, the petitioner no. 1 society
\nreceived in pursuance of any interim orders passed by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tSpecial Civil
\nApplication No. 15730 of 2007 is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
\nRule made absolute accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
20.\t\tThe petitioner filed
\nSpecial Civil Application No. 19369 of 2006 on 14.8.2006 mainly
\nchallenging the resolution pertaining to the amendment of the scheme
\npassed by the respondent no. 1 State Government dated 9.11.2005.  As
\ndiscussed in detail in this judgment above, after such petition was
\nfiled, the exemption certificate was issued in favour of the
\npetitioner society on 13.11.2005. We have also discussed in this
\njudgment  that the resolution regarding amendment of the scheme dated
\n9.11.2005  cannot be made applicable to the case of the present
\npetitioner society. In short, in view of the detailed discussion made
\nin this judgment, according to our opinion,  the Special Civil
\nApplication No. 19369 of 2006 does not survive. Hence it is disposed
\nof accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(
\nY. R. MEENA,  C.J.)<\/p>\n
(
\nJ .C. UPADHYAYA, J. )<\/p>\n
*Pansala.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Bharat vs State on 27 June, 2008 Bench: Y.R.Meena And J.C.Upadhyaya, J.C.Upadhyaya SCA\/15730\/2007 29\/ 37 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15730 of 2007 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 19369 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Y.R.MEENA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA ====================================== […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-105755","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBharat vs State on 27 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-vs-state-on-27-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bharat vs State on 27 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-vs-state-on-27-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-06-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-21T14:38:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"49 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-vs-state-on-27-june-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-vs-state-on-27-june-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bharat vs State on 27 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-21T14:38:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-vs-state-on-27-june-2008\"},\"wordCount\":9714,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-vs-state-on-27-june-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-vs-state-on-27-june-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-vs-state-on-27-june-2008\",\"name\":\"Bharat vs State on 27 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-21T14:38:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-vs-state-on-27-june-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-vs-state-on-27-june-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-vs-state-on-27-june-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bharat vs State on 27 June, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bharat vs State on 27 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-vs-state-on-27-june-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bharat vs State on 27 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-vs-state-on-27-june-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-21T14:38:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"49 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-vs-state-on-27-june-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-vs-state-on-27-june-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bharat vs State on 27 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-21T14:38:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-vs-state-on-27-june-2008"},"wordCount":9714,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-vs-state-on-27-june-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-vs-state-on-27-june-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-vs-state-on-27-june-2008","name":"Bharat vs State on 27 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-21T14:38:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-vs-state-on-27-june-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-vs-state-on-27-june-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-vs-state-on-27-june-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bharat vs State on 27 June, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105755","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=105755"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105755\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=105755"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=105755"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=105755"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}