PRAKASH TATIA,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE non -petitioner -Dealer sought exemption from payment of tax under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1987 (for short 'the Scheme of 1987) on the ground that the non - petitioner -Dealer established new industrial unit as defined in Clause 2 of the said scheme and, therefore, is entitled to benefit of tax exemption. The District Level committee vide its order dated 26.3.1997 denied the said benefit on the ground that the non -petitioner -Dealer has established industry by purchasing existing industry and it is located on the same land over which there was already an industrial unit in existence and was manufacturing the similar goods which the non -petitioner is manufacturing. The non -petitioner preferred appeal against the order of the District Level Committee before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer. The Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer held that the non - petitioner unit is entitled to get the benefit under the Scheme of 1987. Hence this revision petition by the revenue against the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer dated 31.3.1998. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, from the definition given in the Clause 2 of the Scheme of 1987 it is clear that an industrial unit established by transferring or shifting or dismantling an existing industry and an industrial unitestablished on the site of an existing unit manufacturing similar goods, is not the new industry. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that statements of erstwhile industry's owner Madan Monan Verma and one neighbour Chandan Singh were recorded before the rejection of the claim of the non -petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of State Level Committee and Anr. v. Morgardshammar India Ltd. (1996) 101 STC page 1 wherein Section 4A of the Scheme framed under the U.P. Salex Tax Act, 1948 was under consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, identical provision of law was in force in the State of U.P. and the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is also submitted that the exemption laws are required to be construed strictly, which has also been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred judgment. In view of the legal position, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is not in dispute that on the land in question there was industrial unit known as Shrinath Marbles and Minerals and that unit was engaged in cutting marbles blocks. The said unit was purchased by the non - petitioner. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, since the land was belonging to the Industries Department, therefore, mere sanction was granted by the District Collector to the non -petitioner -unit for running the industry and it is not a case of transfer of land by the Collector to the non -petitioner. It is also submitted that as per the admitted fact, the machines were also purchased by the non -petitioner unit of Shrinath Marbles and Minerals and, therefore, the non -petitioner's unit is on the land on which the similar goods were produced by the erstwhile industrial unit and further the non -petitioner purchased the machinery from the erstwhile seller unit, therefore, non -petitioner's unit is not a new unit as per Sub -clauses (i) and (ii) of Clause 2 of the Scheme of 1987.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the non -petitioners vehemently submitted that the industrial unit of Shrinath Marbles and Minerals closed down and its registration was surrendered to the Industries Department of the State. The non -petitioner purchased the land of M/s Shrinath Marbles and Minerals and established entirely a new industrial unit. The non -petitioner is manufacturing the marbles tiles and is not engaged in the trade of marbles cutting which was the job of the Shrinath Marbles and Minerals. Not only this, in the statement which was recorded at the back of the non -petitioner by the department itself, it has come on record that the total investment of the erstwhile unit was Rs. 1,98,657/ - and that investment was for purchasing the local machinery for cutting marbles blocks of 8 x 4 x 4. By this machine, the industry was cutting one marble block in 15 days. It has its own limitation in cutting the marble of about 8 ft. only. The industrial unit of Shrinath Marbles and Minerals was closed and thereafter, the non -petitioner purchased the said land as well as the machinery as it could not have been sold separately. According to the learned Counsel for the non -petitioner, in the statements of two witnesses which were recorded by the C.T.O., the proprietor of Shrinath Marbles and Minerals clearly stated that the his unit even had no electric connection after 5.12.1982 and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any industrial unit on the site when the non -petitioner purchased the land and machinery of the said unit in the year 1994. It is also submitted that industrial unit means the industrial unit in fact and not a piece of land with junk machines or out -dated machines and having no production. Contrary to it, the Tax Board took note of the fact that the land was allotted to the non -petitioner unit by the District Collector and the total investment of Shrinath Marbles and Minerals was of about Rs. two lacs or some thing more, the non -petitioner's unit invested Rs. 47,10,000/ -at that time and at the time of consideration of his application for grant of benefit under the Scheme of 1987, the non -petitioner's investment was of Rs. 65.66 lacks. It is also submitted that the order of the District Level Committee (Annx.l) is in fact not a reasoned order and the reasons which are sought to be supplied by the revenue by filing the copy of the minutes of the State Level Committee, also clearly reveal that before the State Level committee took any decision of rejecting the non -petitioner's claim, they decided to take opinion of Directorate of Industries in the meeting dated 3.8.1986 but it appears from the minutes that said opinion was not considered by the State Level Committee and the District Level Committee and without application of mind, the District Level Committee rejected the non -petitioner's claim which was rightly set aside by the Tax Board.;