BALIA, J. - (1.) THESE three writ petitions raise a common question about the interpretation of term `expansion' and the conditions to be fulfilled by the applicants thereunder for seeking benefits under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1987 or the Rajasthan New Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1989.
(2.) ALL the three applicants-respondents in the aforesaid petitioners had applied for the sanction for issuing Eligibility Certificate before the State Level Screening Committee in respect of their expansions carried on by them in the respective existing industrial units engaged in the manufacture of yarn. M/s. H. E. G. Ltd. has applied for the benefit under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Deferment Scheme, 1987 (Deferment Scheme 1987) whereas M/s. Reliance Chemotex Industries Ltd. has sought the benefit under the Rajasthan Sales Tax New Deferment Scheme, 1989 (for short, `new Deferment Scheme'), M/s. Super Syncotex (India) Ltd. has sought the benefit under the Rajasthan Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme, 1989 (for short, `new Incentive Scheme' ). The definition of `expansion' of an industrial unit under the Incentive Scheme, 1987, or the New Incentive Scheme, 1989, or the Deferment Scheme, 1987, or the New Deferment Scheme, 1989 remains the same. The Schemes under which applications have been made in the present facts and circumstances of the case do not alter the character of the question and therefore these cases, we deem it convenient to hear together and decide by this common order. In fact, the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal has also decided the cases of M/s. Super Syncotex (India) Ltd. and M/s. H. E. G. Ltd. by a common order whereas M/s. Reliance Chemotex Industries Ltd. 's case has been decided by a separate judgment by the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal. On application being made in this behalf by the respondents in respect of their respective units for grant of Eligibility Certificate under the Schemes in question as an `expansion', the State Level Screening Committee has rejected their claims on the sole ground that they have not achieved the production to the extent of 25% of the original `licensed and registered capacity' of the unit. The contention on behalf of the Units has been that they have increased capital investment in the Fixed Capital Investment by not less than 25% of the Net Fixed Assets of the existing projects. It is also not in dispute that in each case, the unit has achieved 25% increase in production by at least increasing the production to the extent of at least 25% of the existing production under the installed capacity and each of the unit has also achieved production at least 85% of their existing installed capacity. The respective details in respect of all the three cases relating the Fixed Capital Investment, the increase in production and the achievement in production upto at least 85% of their capacity, stated in the petitions are also undisputed. It is further not in dispute that all the three units in question were licenced under the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as `act of 1951') as was required of them under the provisions of Act of 1951. Since all the units are engaged in the activity of manufacturing yarn, the installed capacity in each case has been expressed in terms of number of spindles. In terms of the capacity permitted to be installed under the licence, each one of them has achieved installation of 85% spindles of their capacity. In the aforesaid circumstances, the further fact, which is of relevance and about which there is no dispute, is that under the 1991 industrial policy statement of the Union of India, the industries in question are no more required to be licenced under the Act of 1951. In other words, since the adoption of the new industrial policy as per the policy statement in 1991, the industries like the respondents were not required to obtain the licence since 1991 at all. The existing licenses became redundant for any future action. In the aforesaid scenario, the contention of the petitioners the Commercial Taxes Deptt. and Industries Deptt. is that none of the industrial units has installed new spindles to the extent so as to increases in 25% spindles more than the Maximum permissible capacity stated in their licences, they cannot be considered eligible for the benefit under the respective Schemes. On the other hand, it has been the case on behalf of the units claiming benefit of the scheme that since the abolition of licence system, the licenced capacity or the registered capacity no more exist with reference to which the required increase in the installed capacity and the actual production can be measured. It must necessarily relate to the existing production under the existing installed capacity and increase in the production with increase in the capacity to be installed/expanded.
(3.) WHILE the State Level Screening Committee has rejected the claim of the respondents, the Tax Board allowed the applications of the respective respondents and directed issuance of Eligibility Certificate. On revision, the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal agreed with the conclusions reached by the Rajasthan Tax Board and dismissed the revisions filed by the Revenue. Hence these writ petitions are before us. It is now common ground between the parties that in pursuance of the orders under challenge, the Eligibility Certificate has in fact been issued to the respective applicants and they are availing the benefit under the Scheme. In Writ Petition No. 1632/98 the respondent M/s. Super Syncotex Ltd. made an application for availing the benefit under the New Incentive Scheme, 1989 on 25. 08. 1995 as an expansion unit. ;