Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a private limited company, proposed to set up an industrial park named 'Salarpuria Touch Stone' in Bangalore under a Joint Development Agreement dated 09.02.2024. The Central Government notified the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 (IPS 2002) for the purpose of Section 80-IA(4)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner obtained No Objection Certificates from BESCOM and the Fire Services Department in 2005, a Commencement Certificate from BDA in December 2005, and building plan approval in June 2006. On 15.12.2006, the petitioner applied to the first respondent in Form IPS-1 for approval under IPS 2002 via the non-automatic route, as the proposed park had only three units. After an acknowledgement and request for verification, the Joint Director of Industries and Commerce recommended consideration on 01.03.2007. Despite further communications, the first respondent issued an endorsement on 03.02.2009 stating that the application was not covered under IPS 2002 and advising the petitioner to apply under the newly notified Industrial Park Scheme, 2008. The petitioner challenged this endorsement in W.P. No. 3574/2010. The High Court, by order dated 16.03.2016, directed the first respondent to reconsider the application. Following a representation and reminders, the first respondent passed the impugned rejection order dated 14.02.2017, holding that IPS 2002 had expired on 31.03.2006 and the application was not maintainable. Contempt proceedings in CCC No. 504/2017 were disposed of on 28.10.2021 with liberty to challenge the rejection, leading to the present writ petition. The petitioner contended that all requirements were fulfilled and the rejection was arbitrary and contrary to the earlier court order. The respondents argued that IPS 2002 was applicable only for the period up to 31.03.2006, the application was filed after the scheme’s expiry, and the petitioner could have applied under IPS 2008. The DPIIT had no authority to process IPS 2002 applications after 31.03.2006 as per an official memorandum. The court’s full decision is not contained in the provided text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned rejection order dated 14.02.2017 rejecting the petitioner's application for approval of an industrial park under Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 is valid and whether the petitioner is entitled to consideration of the application despite expiry of the scheme period.
Case Details
2024 LawText (KAR) (09) 47
Writ Petition No. 6165 of 2022 (T-IT)
K.K. Chaitanya (Sr. Counsel for S. Sharath) for petitioner; Aravind Kamath (ASG for S.K. Acharya) for R1; E.I. Sanmathi for R2
M/S. Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Union of India (Secretary, Dept of Industrial Policy and Promotion) and Central Board of Direct Taxes
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the rejection order and to direct approval of an industrial park under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the impugned office notice dated 14.02.2017, and issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to sanction approval for the proposed industrial park under IPS 2002, and directing the second respondent to notify the park under Rule 18C.
Filing Reason
The first respondent rejected the petitioner's application for approval under IPS 2002, stating that the scheme had expired and the application was not covered, despite earlier court direction to reconsider.
Previous Decisions
W.P. No. 3574/2010 disposed of on 16.03.2016 directing reconsideration; contempt proceedings in CCC No. 504/2017 disposed of on 28.10.2021 dropping contempt and granting liberty to challenge rejection order.
Issues
Whether the petitioner's application for approval under IPS 2002, filed on 15.12.2006 after the expiry of the scheme period, is maintainable and entitled to consideration.
Whether the rejection order dated 14.02.2017 is arbitrary and contrary to the earlier court order.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: Application filed under non-automatic route, all details furnished, Joint Director recommended, delay by respondents, earlier court ordered reconsideration, but respondents rejected it under IPS 2002.
Respondent: IPS 2002 valid only for period up to 31.03.2006; application filed after expiry; industrial park to commence in 2007; petitioner could apply under IPS 2008; DPIIT had no authority to process IPS 2002 applications after 31.03.2006 as per memorandum dated 02.06.2008.
Judgment Excerpts
the petitioner filed an application on 15.12.2006 to the 1st respondent in Form IPS-1 for approval of setting up the aforesaid industrial park under IPS 2002 under non-automatic route.
since IPS 2002 expired on 31.03.2006, the petitioner was not entitled to file an application subsequent thereto and as such, the petitioner’s application dated 15.12.2006 was not maintainable under IPS 2002
the 1st respondent issued an Endorsement dated 03.02.2009 informing the petitioner that its application in Form IPS-1 was not covered under IPS 2002 and that the petitioner may file an appropriate application under IPS 2008.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed application under IPS 2002 on 15.12.2006 seeking approval for industrial park. After various correspondences, 1st respondent issued endorsement dated 03.02.2009 rejecting the application, advising to apply under IPS 2008. Petitioner challenged endorsement in W.P. No. 3574/2010. The High Court by order dated 16.03.2016 directed reconsideration. Petitioner submitted representation on 04.04.2016 and reminders. 1st respondent passed impugned rejection order dated 14.02.2017. Petitioner filed contempt petition CCC No. 504/2017, which was disposed on 28.10.2021 with liberty to challenge rejection. Hence present writ petition filed seeking quashing of rejection order and consequential reliefs.
Acts & Sections
- Income Tax Act, 1961: Section 80-IA(4)(iii)
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Income-tax Rules, 1962: Rule 18C
