P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. - (1.) THE Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited (TISCO), an assessee to sales tax under the Bihar Finance Act claimed the benefit of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001 and the notification issued pursuant thereto under section 22 of the Bihar Finance Act. The assessee had established an industrial unit in the former State of Bihar, now Jharkhand. It had also set up a unit for the manufacture of Cold Rolled Products, a new product not manufactured by the company until then. ' According, to the company, it had invested more than Rs. 1300 crores in the unit and in respect of that unit; it had claimed the benefit of the Bihar Industrial Policy, 1995. The question whether the petitioner company was entitled to claim the benefit of the Industrial Policy, 1995 was now pending decision in the Supreme Court, the High Court having remanded the claim of the petitioner in that behalf for re -consideration by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and on that being challenged in the Supreme Court.
(2.) ON the announcement of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001, and the notification pursuant thereto, the company made the application Annexure 6, before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Therein, the company claimed that it was eligible to avail the benefit of set off of the sales tax paid on the purchase of raw materials within the State of Jharkhand, with the sales tax payable on the sale of finished products within the State of Jharkhand as well as on the inter - State sales in terms of the notifications, Nos. SO. 65 and 66, both dated 12.1.2002. The claim related to all lines of industries or units run by the Company. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the claim of the company on the ground that the company had claimed the benefit under the Industrial Policy, 1995 in respect of the Cold Rolling Mill Unit and hence, it was not entitled to claim the benefits of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001, all over again. Though the petitioner company sought to challenge this order directly in this Court, this Court declined to entertain the writ petition and directed the company to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, under section 46(4) of the Bihar Finance Act. The Company thereafter filed a revision before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. By order dated 26.3.2003, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dismissed the revision on the ground that the benefit was not available to the petitioner in view of its having claimed the benefit under the industrial Policy, 1995. The petitioner approached this Court with the present writ petition challenging the decision of the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner refusing it relief under the notifications, SO Nos. 65 and 66 dated 12.1.2002. Learned counsel for the Department, during the course of arguments, raised a contention that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy by way of revision under section 46(2)(b) of the Bihar Finance Act and the petitioner must be left to pursue that remedy. Counsel for the petitioner met this contention by pointing out that in the earlier judgment, directing the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 46(4) of the Act, this Court had observed that in case the petitioner was aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner, the petitioner may approach this Court and on the basis of that direction, the petitioner was entitled to approach this Court direct. It was further pointed out that no such objection has been raised in the counter affidavit. After all, it was a question of interpretation of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001, and the notifications issued in furtherance of it under sections 13 and 22 of the Bihar Finance Act. He submitted that there is no dispute on the facts involved, since the facts are, more or less, admitted and what is involved is only the interpretation of the notifications and consideration of the question whether the claim of the petitioner is sustainable on the facts. Hence, this is a fit case where the question should be decided by this Court rather than compelling the petitioner to go before the Tribunal. Considering the nature of the question to be decided, in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench, while earlier declining jurisdiction and taking note of the fact that the question involved is only the claim for benefit under the notifications on more or less admitted facts, we are not satisfied that the petitioner should be driven to pursue the alternative remedy that may be available to it. There is also a challenge to a part of the notification on the ground that it is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and since the contention could not be considered by the statutory Tribunal and could be dealt with only by this Court, it appears to be all the more appropriate for this Court to consider the claim of the petitioner in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, over -rule the preliminary objection raised half -heartedly by the learned Government counsel.
(3.) ON 15.11.2000. the State of Jharkhand came into existence. On 15.12.2000, the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 , the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1983 and the Central Sales Tax Act were extended to the State of Jharkhand.The State of Jharkhand issued an industrial policy, Industrial Policy, 2001, with a view to provide optimum utilization of the available resources of the State in a planned manner and to accelerate the industrial development of the State. Certain benefits in the matter of payment of commercial taxes were also envisaged by the Policy. We are concerned with subclauses (1) and (2) of clause 28 of the Policy. We may read the sub -clauses hereunder : "28.1 New Industrial Units as well as existing units which are not availing any facility of Tax -deferment or Tax free purchases or Tax free sales under any notification announced earlier, shall be allowed to opt for set off, of Jharkhand Sales Tax paid on the purchases of raw materials within the State of Jharkhand only against Sales Tax payable either JST or CST on the sale, excluding stock transfer or consignment sale out side the State, of finished products made out from such raw materials subject to a limitation of six months or the same financial year from the date of purchase of such raw materials. 28.2 Clause 13(i) (b) of the Adopted Bihar Finance Act, 1981 provides for two (2) rates of concessional sales tax on purchases of raw material and other inputs. These are 2% and 3% against Form IX. Both these rates will be reduced to 2% in view of provision for set off as aforesaid." ;