- (1.) These appeals are from the final judgment and order dated 24.8.2000 in CWJC No. 2689 of 2000 and the order dated 10.11.2000 in Review Petition No. 91 of 2000(R) passed by the High Court of Patna at Ranchi. The subject-matter of these appeals is the claim of M/s Tata Cummins Ltd., Appellant 1 for exemption from payment of sales tax under the Bihar Industrial Policy of 1995 for a period of eight years.
(2.) The first appellant made an application for sales tax exemption on 25.5.1998. While the said application was under consideration, in their communication dated 30.10.1998, the first appellant had stated as follows: "The ownership of the factory complex lies with Tata Cummins which has been verified and acknowledged by the Commercial Taxes Department during the course of the first-phase inspection. The fact of ownership of building through assetisation is also revealed in the audited accounts of the Company till date. Banks have also acknowledged the same and allowed borrowings.... Since we have set up a new industry by putting in substantial amount of investment (more than Rs. 300.00 crores) in Jamshedpur, Bihar and are holding all government registrations like sales tax, Central excise, factory licence, Pollution Control Board NOC, RBI, EEPC, we satisfy the spirit of Bihar Industrial Policy, 1995 . You may note that commercial banks have provided a term loan of Rs. 215.00 crores and working capital of Rs. 70.00 crores for setting up of the project. All the above authorities have acknowledged the ownership of factory complex of Tata Cummins before giving registration and loan. It is hereby submitted that once we are owners of the factory building there is no question of considering the lease sites. The lease sites have to be considered only when the building where the factory is situated is also on lease. Our submission is based on the notification which is absolutely clear in this regard."
(3.) Vide order dated 2.11.1998, the Deputy Commissioner purporting to exercise powers under SOs Nos. 478 and 479 of 22.12.1995, rejected the application with observation as follows: "Since you have not obtained title/possession over the land of the factory, therefore, the conditions laid down in Notifications Nos. 478 and 479 dated 22.12.1995 are not fulfilled.";