CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the Notification (corrigendum) dated 30.9.99 (Annx. 7) and/or in the alternative to hold that the said notification has no application to the petitioner and also for quashing the consequential provisional assessment orders and notices and further to quash the order of the State Level Screening Committee dated 13.12.1999 as well as the eligibility certificate dated 29.2.2000 in so far as the same restricted the petitioner's benefits to 25% instead of full benefits as per the original incentive scheme.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in manufacturing and selling of portland cement and clinker. THE State Government notified the Rajasthan Sales Tax/Central Sales Tax Exemption Scheme for Industries, 1998 (for short, "the Exemption Scheme") vide Gazette Notification dated 7.4.98, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short, "R.S.T. Act") read with Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, "C.S.T. Act") providing for exemption to industrial units from payment of tax on the intra-State/inter-State sales of goods manufactured by them within the State in the manner, to the extent and for the period, specified therein. The salient features of the scheme have been that the exemption scheme shall be operative from 1.4.98 to 31.3.2003. It shall confer benefits to industrial units which commence commercial production during the said operative period. Para 2(a) of the scheme defines "Banned Area", as the areas under the urban agglomeration limits of cities, as notified by the Competent Authority. Explanation thereto provides that sick units, located anywhere in the State, shall be eligible for the benefits under the Scheme. Para 2(h) defines "ineligible industries" as industries included in Annx. A to the said notification and the same shall not be eligible for the benefits under the scheme. It further explains that such restriction shall not apply to sick industrial units as defined in that clause. Para 2 (j) defines "large scale unit" and Para 2 (k) (i) defines "new industrial unit" as industrial unit which commences commercial production during the operation of the scheme. Para 2(k) (ii) reads as under:- "New Industrial Unit' shall also include a sick unit- (a) which has not availed of any benefits of exemption from tax or deferment of tax; ..............................................................................................................". Sub-Clauses (1), (m) and (n) of Para 2 of the Scheme define different kinds of units depending upon the fixed capital investment and the number of persons employed therein as "Pioneering Unit," "Premier Unit" and Prestigious Unit" and Para 2 (g) defines the "sick industrial unit." Para 3 of the Scheme provides for "Applicability of the Exemption Scheme" and Clause (a) (iv) thereof provides that it shall also apply to "sick industrial units". Clause (c) of the said para provides that the industrial units established in the banned area shall not be eligible for claiming benefit, however, this restriction would not apply to sick industrial units. Para 4 of the said Scheme provides for "Sanction of benefits under the Exemption Scheme and issue of Eligibility Certificate by the State Level Screening Committee (for short, "SLSC") or District Level Screening Committee (for short, "DLSC"), as the case may be. It further provides that it shall act as quasi-judicial authority and its decision shall be final. Clause (h) of Para 4 provides that the benefit under the "scheme shall be available "from the date of application filed by the applicant unit complete in all respects" as certified by the Secretary of the Appropriate Screening Committee. Para 5 provides for general terms and conditions for exemption from the sales tax and Clause (g) thereof provides that if during the operation of the Scheme, an industry is included in the list of ineligible industries, i.e. Annx. A, but the same has fulfilled the conditions incorporated in either of its three Sub-clauses, it shall be entitled to avail the benefits. Annx. A to the said Scheme contains the list of industries not eligible for exemption from the tax under the scheme. It includes the mini cement plants upto the manufacturing capacity of 200 tonnes per day. Annx. B to the said scheme provides for eligibility and extent of exemption from tax in a tappering manner for a period of eleven years. Para 3 of Annx. B provides for types of units eligible for exemption and includes all categories of cement units including pioneering, prestigious, very prestigious and premier units except the mini cement plants which have been made ineligible vide Annx. A. Clause (a) of Para 4 of Annx. B provides that a sick unit which had not availed benefits of exemption from tax or deferment of tax previously, would be entitled for the same benefits for eleven years which are available to new units at Serial No.1 Clause (b) thereof provides that other sick units which have availed of the benefits of exemption from the tax or deferment of tax can avail the benefit for eleven years but in a tappering manner as it shall start in the first year with 80% and shall be only 10% for the 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th years.
(3.) IN the instant case, petitioner company- a sick industrial unit within the meaning of para 2(q) (1)(i) of the Scheme asserts that sick units have been classified as a separate class or category of the units for the purpose of the scheme and, thus, entitled for exemption of tax as provided under the Scheme originally, petitioner submitted its application complete in all respects with the SLSC claiming the benefits under the said scheme as a sick unit on 17.6.99. The SLSC, the sanctioning authority classified petitioner company as a sick unit under serial No. 4 of Annx. B vide order dated 10.8.1999. The State Government issued a notification (corrigendum) dated 30.9.99, published in the Gazette on 7.1.2000, by which the sick units have been brought from Serial No. 4 to Serial No. 3 in Annex. B. The impugned notices/provisional assessment orders have been made/issued on the basis of the said corrigendum giving exemption only upto 25%. Hence this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised various issues, inter alia, that the petitioner company, being a sick unit, a separate and distinct category, i.e. the class in itself, was covered by Serial No. 4 of Annx. B of the Scheme prior to the corrigendum and it had been declared so by the SLSC and that order attained finality as the same had not been challenged by the State before the appointment forum. By the said corrigendum, it has not only reduced the benefits, rather taken away the vested or accrued rights/entitlement of the petitioner under the Scheme. The corrigendum does not provide for any correction in the scheme rather-tentamounts to an amendment in the Scheme which can be, at the most, applicable with prospective effect but cannot take away the existing/accrued or vested rights of the assessees. According to Mr. Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, it may be applicable only after 7.1.2000, i.e. date of publication of the corrigendum in the Gazette, or in any event after 30.9.99, date of corrigendum, but it cannot take away the accrued rights of the assessees with retrospective effect. Mr. Mehta, learned Advocate General, contended that Clause 8 of the Scheme provides for revision by the State of any order passed by the Committee and Clause 9 of the same provides for review or modification of the exemption scheme as such whenever it is needed in public interest, therefore, the scheme does not confer any vested right on the petitioner or any other industrial unit and whenever public interest requires, the scheme may be modified/amended. Needless to say that whenever revenues are required for development of the State and the Government takes a decision to modify such a scheme, the industrial units cannot have any grievance against it. Clause (g) of para 5 does not provide for benefits of the scheme only for those units which fulfil the conditions incorporated in either of the Sub-clauses thereof and it shall be applicable only in a case where an industry, though included in Annx. A on any date during the period of operation of the scheme and further fulfils either of the terms in either of the three clauses, e.g. in Clause (i) the industries of which the applications for grant of benefits are pending before any Committee on the said date, i.e. the date on which the industry stood included in Annex. A and it does not apply to the units which stood included in Annx. A on the date of promulgation of the scheme as Clauses (g) and (i) of para 1 of the scheme makes it clear that it has taken into consideration the earlier incentive or deferment Scheme of 1987 and 1989. Clause (4) thereof provides that the "benefits" if sanctioned, shall be restricted to the extent of benefits which would be available to such unit in the incentive or deferment Schemes of 1987 and 1989, as the case may be. Therefore, according to Mr. Mehta, it is not applicable in the case of all the sick industrial units irrespective of its nature and inclusion in Annx. A or Annx. B. In the earlier incentive/deferment schemes of 1987 and 1989, "cement industry" was not put at the par with other industries as different criteria had been laid down under the said schemes. The corrigendum dated 30.9.99 (Annx. 7) provides for correction, which might have resulted in withdrawing certain benefits conferred upon certain industries. Thus, petitioner is not entitled for any relief in equity jurisdiction. ;