- (1.) Heard Mr. Bharat Ji Agrawal and Mr. S.M.K. Chaudhari, Senior Advocates duly assisted by Mr. Piyush Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. The controversy involved in the instant writ petition is that the petitioner has not been granted eligibility certificate under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act on the ground that one Member of Secretary Level Committee did not agree with the majority view.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has established a new unit for manufacture of vanaspati in accordance with the scheme announced by the State Government for promoting the industrial development in the State of Uttar Pradesh and for increasing the production of the goods under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. Pursuant to the notification dated December 26, 1985, the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ghaziabad, namely, the Industries Department, has forwarded the recommendation of the District Level Committee for grant of eligibility certificate since the petitioner is entitled for exemption under the aforesaid notification. Thereafter, vide letter dated January 26, 1991, the Deputy Commissioner (Executive), after making a spot inspection, informed that the petitioner's unit is a new unit and it has installed all new machinery. It has also been mentioned in the said report that the earlier unit of Modi Vanaspati, which is no longer in existence, was not adjacent to the present new unit inasmuch as in between the two units, another unit, namely, Modi Gas & Chemicals is situated, hence this new unit established by the petitioner cannot be said to be adjacent to the earlier unit. Thereafter, the matter was referred by the State Level Committee to the Secretary Level Committee and it was considered before the said committee on July 11, 1991. In the said meeting, out of three members, two members had agreed to grant the eligibility certificate granting exemption from payment of tax to the unit established by the petitioner for the manufacture of vanaspati. Owing to difference of opinion between the Commissioner of Sales Tax and other two members, the matter was referred to the Secretary Level Committee in accordance with the provisions of notification dated December 26, 1985.
(3.) As the eligibility certificate was not granted, under the compelling circumstances, the instant writ petition has been filed and a coordinate Bench of this court passed the following order on March 31, 1992: In our order dated December 19, 1991 we had indicated that the question of further interim relief shall be considered after the expiry of the above period which we had allowed to the standing counsel to file a counter-affidavit. Counter-affidavit has not been filed. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned standing counsel. Since the fact that the matter has been disposed of by the State Level Committee and the majority opinion is in favour of the petitioner, we direct that the opposite-parties shall issue provisional eligibility certificate to the petitioner within a week from today subject to the final decision of the writ petition.;