Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned standing counsel for the respondent. The two questions of law involved in the matter are: "(i) Whether for the purpose of eligibility for exemption of tax under section 4A in the case of diversification the assessee was required to satisfy requirement pertaining to land with regard to its ownership and tenancy for seven years contemplated in section 4A, Explanation (1) or it is governed by section 4A, Explanation (5)? (ii) Whether liquid pesticides and powder pesticides manufactured by the assessee -revisionist are one and the same thing as held by Revenue or different?
(2.) SO far as question No. (i) is concerned, this court finds that requirement relating to land, building, etc., are contemplated in Explanation (1) in the context of a new unit but in respect of units which are already existing but have undergone expansion, diversification or modernization, the matter is governed by Explanation (5), which reads as under: "(5) 'Unit which has undertaken expansion, diversification or modernization' means an industrial undertaking - - (a) of a dealer who is not defaulter in payment of any dues under this Act or the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 or under the Sales Tax Loan Scheme administered by the Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of Uttar Pradesh; (b) which has undertaken a programme of expansion, diversification or modernization at any time after March 31, 1990; (c) the production capacity whereof has increased by at least twenty -five per cent, as a result of expansion or modernization, or wherein goods of a nature different from these manufactured earlier are manufactured after diversification; (d) wherein an additional fixed capital investment of at least twenty -five per cent, of such original fixed capital investment (without providing for depreciation) is made." There I do not find any requirement with respect to land or building and to my mind the Tribunal has erred in law in going into the question of lease deed and its registration, etc., as that would have been a requirement, had it been a case of a new unit governed by Explanation (1) but in the present case the revisionist -assessee was claiming certain benefits as a result of expansion and diversification of an existing industrial undertaking, hence the requirement of Explanation (1) could not have been read under Explanation (5), particularly in absence of anything available in the statute book permitting to do so.
(3.) THE question No. (i), therefore, is answered in favour of the assessee and it is held that it was required to satisfy the requirements contemplated in Explanation (5) and the requirement under Explanation (1) have wrongly been taken into account by the Tribunal in the impugned order, as the same is not applicable.;