ORDER
Balia, J.
(1). These two writ petitions arise out of a common order and hence are heard and decided together.
(2). The respondent in Writ Petition No. 3002 M/s Sankeshwar Metals and another established new Industrial Unit and commenced commercial production on 1.1.86 and respondent M/s Shri Suparshwa Tube in writ petition No. 3008/99 commenced commercial production of its new industrial unit on 1.5.1986. Both of them were entitled to certain concessions under the 1985 Dispensation under the Rajasthan Sates Tax Act, 195-1. However, the Slate Government had introduced an Incentive Scheme known as Rajaslhan Sales Tax Incentive Scheme 1987 on 23.5.87 which permitted new Industrial Units under 1985 Dispensation to opt for availing benefit of Incentive Scheme, 1987 provided they make their option known to the competent Authority within 60 days of the commencement of the scheme initially. The period was extended to 150 days. However, both the units did not exercise their option within lime allowed under the 1987 Scheme, but they applied to avail the benefit of incentive Scheme 1987 on 28.1.88. Those applications were not entertained by the Dist. Level Screening Committee as the exercise of option was delayed and 1987 Scheme did not contain any provision empowering the Dist. Level Screening Committee to entertain the application beyond limitation. Thereafter with effect from 6th July, 1989, Rajasthan Sales Tax (New) Incentive Scheme, 1989 was introduced. Clause 1 which describes operative field of the Scheme envisages that 1989 Scheme shall be deemed to have come into operation with effect from 5.3.1987 and shall remain in force until 12.3.97 which has been extended from lime to time.
(3). In the first instance, the Dist. Level Screening Committee by its order dated 24.5.90 granted eligible certificate in favour of both the respondents under the new Incentive Scheme, 1989 by condoning the delay. However, by order dated 10.6.1992, the said eligibility certificate was cancelled by the Dist. Level Screening Committeewithout notice to the concerned dealers. That followed in filing of writ petitions No. 3530/92 and 3410/92 by the two dealers which came to be allowed by this Court on 29.3.93 and 20.5.93 respectively with a direction to DLSC to decide the question afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the dealers.
(4). The Distt. Level Committee after hearing the dealers in its meeting held on 17.3.1994 again decided to cancei the eligibility certificate as issued in favour of the two dealers and decision was again communicated on 6.4.94.
(5). Aggrieved with cancellation of their eligibility certificates, the respondents in each case filed separate writ petitions before this Court which stood transferred to the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal on its constitution. The Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal by a common judgment which is under challenge in these writ petitions allowed the writ petitions, set aside the order cancelling eligibility certificate and upheld the grant of eligibility certificate under Sub-Clause C of Clause 1 of 1989 Scheme.
(6). Mr. Lodha has contended that in view of specific provision and Clause I (b) excluding new Industrial Unit covered by 1985 dispensation, the dealers were not entitled to benefit of availing eligibility certificate under 1989 Scheme and, therefore, the case of the respondents-dealers could no! have been entertained by DLSC under the 1989 Scheme at all. There being no provision in 1987 scheme for condonation of delay in exercise of option and no power of reviewing the order of rejection passed under 1987 Scheme, the order of rejection in respect of respondents who fall within the purview of 1985 dispensalion became final. Therefore, admittedly, the eligible certificate issued in favour of respondents in both the petitions was wholly without jurisdiction and has rightly been cancelled. The Tribunal, according to the learned counsel has erred in not appreciating this clear position.
(7). Mr. Eklavya Bhansali on the other hand has contended that the case of the dealers is governed by sub Clause (C) of Clause I which is not inhibited by exclusion of new unit covered under the 1985 dispensation. Both the clauses operate indifferent field and, therefore, there was no impediment before the Dist. Level Screening Committee to have considered the application of the two dealers in question which has been rejected under 1987 scheme solely on the ground of limitation.
(8). On the first flush the contention of Mr. Bhansali appears to be plausible but fails to sustain itself, on a close look at the Scheme in its entirety. It would be appropriate if the background of the relevant concessional scheme for the present purpose is noticed.
(9). Before commencement of the Incentive Scheme, 1987 and Sales Tax Deferment Scheme, 1987, the Slate of Rajasthan has vehicles interest free Sales Tax LoanScheme under 1985 dispensation. The new Industrial units covered under 1985 dispensation prior to commencement of 1987 Scheme, incentive as well as deferment, were entitled for concession in the form of Interest free Sales Tax Loan. Under the Income scheme 1987 new industrial units which commence commercial production during the operative period of said scheme became entitled to avail the benefit of exemption from payment of lax on the sales made in the course of Interstate trade or commerce of the goods manufactured by them within the State. This Scheme was introduced vide notification daled 23.5.1987 and the originally was to remain in force upto 31.3.1992. This scheme was applicable to new industrial units which commenced commercial production on or after 5.3.1987, but prior to closure of the Scheme namely 31.3.1992 or the extended dale. On 26th Sep., 1987, Sales Tax Deferment Scheme 1987 was also introduced. Under this Scheme, the units availing the benefit thereunder were not exempted from payment of lax, but enabled them to defer the payment of lax chargeable on the sales made by them within the Stale of the goods manufactured by them within the State until expiry of the period prescribed under the scheme. Similar concessions were extended under the Central Sales Tax by separate notifica-lion. The provisions was made under the two schemes for permitting the new industries which have started commercial production on or after 1.5.85 and were entilled to Interest Free Sales Tax Loan Scheme under 1985 deferment Scheme to avail benefit of two schemes instead of availing benefit of concession under 1985 dispensation. The extension of this benefit was not automatic, but it was left with the concerned industrial unit which has started commercial production on or after 1.4.85 and was entitled for interest Free Sales Tax Loan Scheme under 1985 Dispensation to opt for the benefit under the Incenlive or Deferment Scheme 1987 as the case may be with a condition that it exercises its option within the time allowed under the Scheme. No provision was made for extending the period for exercise of option or for condoning the delay in making application for availing benefit required to be made in this Scheme. Thereafter during continuance of 1987 scheme, the Rajaslhan Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme, 1989 was introduced vide notification dated 6.7.89 as well as Rajasthan Sales Tax Deferment Scheme; 1989 was introduced vide notification dated 6.7.89. 11 may be pertinent to notice that 1989 Scheme did not replace or substitute 1987 Scheme, but was allowed to run parallel along with 1987 Scheme and was made applicable with effect from 5.3.87, the date on which Rajasthan Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1987 became operative. The operative field of this 1989 Scheme which was to run parallel to 1987 Scheme gave option to industries which had commenced commercial production on or after 5.3.87 to switch over from the Concession under 1987 Scheme to 1989 Scheme on their option. However, from the operative field of 1989 Scheme, the Units which were covered under 1985 Dispensation which were entitled for availing the benefit of Interest Free Saies Tax Loan and were allowed to opt for benefit under 1987 Scheme, were deliberately kept out of the operative field of the 1989 scheme and benefits were confined either to avail interest free Sales Tax loan under 1985 Dispensation or incentive under Scheme of 1987. The relevant provisions of the Scheme of 1989 which invite attention are firstly Clause 3 which reads as under:
'3 Applicability of the New Incentive Scheme The New Incentive Scheme will be applicable (1) to New Industrial Units (2) to industrial units going in for expansion or diversification and (3) to Sick units.'
(10). Each of these Units were defined in the definition Clause 2. The New Industrial Unit was defined as under:
'New Industrial Unit' means an industrial unit which commences production during the operative period of the New Incentive Scheme, but will not include.
(i) an industrial unit established by transferring or shifting or dismantling an existing industry; and
(ii) an industrial unit established on the site of an existing unit manufacturing similar goods.'
(11). Since operative period of Incentive Scheme 1989 commenced with effect from 5.3.87, it is apparent that any new industrial unit to come within the operative field of 1989 scheme as new industrial unit must be one which has commenced commercial production on or after 5.3.87. Any industrial Unit which commenced its commercial production prior to 5.3.87 would not fall within the purview of 1989 Scheme on its own force unless by any other specific provision, benefit has been so extended. There is no such provision as was available under 1987 Scheme extending benefit of 1989 Scheme to a new industrial unit which has commenced production on or after 1.4.1985 and was entitled to avail benefit of Interest Free Sates Tax Loan under 1985 Dispensation.
(12). On the other hand Sub-clause (b) of Clause 1 reads as under:
(b) 'An industrial Unit, other than the new industrial unit covered by 1985 Dispensation, being covered by the Sales Tax Incentive Schemefor the industries, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Old Incentive Scheme) shall have an alternative option to seek the benefits under the New Incenlive Scheme.'
(13). This Clause makes it more than clear that the new industrial unit coveredby 1985 Dispensation was excluded from the application of the Scheme explicitly bynot extending right to opt to switch over to 1989 scheme. Sub-clause (c) and (d) whichre relevant for our purpose read as under:
'(c) An industrial unit, of which the application under the Old Incentive Scheme has been rejected on the ground of limitation only or is pending before any Screening Commillee shall be entitled to opt for the New Incentive Scheme by making a simple application on a plain paper to this effect before the appropriate Screening Committee.
(d) An industrial unit, which has already been granted sanction by any Screening Committee under the Old Incentive Scheme or to whom an eligibility certificate under that Scheme has already has been issued, may also opt for the New Incentive Scheme by making a simple application on a plain paper to his assessing authority specifying therein the benefit already exhausted and also the remaining benefit to be availed of under the Old Scheme. The assessing authority after due verification of the facts mentioned in the application, shall issue Exemption Certificate under the New Incentive Scheme for remaining eligible amount of the Old Scheme and for the remaining period thereunder, after obtaining the prior approval of the Commissioner.'
(14). Under Clause (c) it seems that an industrial unil whose application under the Old Incenlive Scheme has been rejected on the ground of limitation only, has been permitted to opt for new Incentive Scheme by making a simple application on a plain paper to this effect before appropriate Screening Committee so also the industrial unit whose application for grant of eligibility certificate is pending under the Scheme was enabled to opl for New incentive Scheme, 1989. Clause (d) made a further provision that industrial unit which has already been granted sanction by any Screening Commillee under the Old Incentive Scheme may also opl for the shifting to new Incentive Scheme by making a simple application for the purpose of availing concession in respect of remaining eligible amount of Old Scheme and for the remaining period thereunder. If clause (c) is read in isolation an impression is created which speaks about the industrial undertaking, unqualified with words 'other than the New Industrial Unit covered by 1985 Dispensation'. That though the new Industrial covered by 1985 Dispensation has not been slated for availing the benefit of option to concession under Clause (b) of the 1989 Scheme and was kept out of its field. Those units whose application has not been granted either rejected on the ground of limitation or because the same has not been decided, only have been permitted to make application under 1989 Scheme for being considered thereunder so that they may nol remain high and dry of the benefits. However, when clause (b),(c) and (d) are read together, no doubt is left in our minds that clause (b) defines operative field of Scheme of 1989 to which it is applicable. Clause (c) and (d) governs the manner in which an industrial unit covered under 1987 scheme to which new incentive Scheme was applicable but whose application has either been rejected on the ground of limitation or whose application is pending before any Screening Committee-has been permitted to come within the field of 1989 Scheme by opting therefor.
(15). It is well known canon of interpretation of statutory document that so far as it is possible no part of statutory document should be rendered ofiose and such document should not be read in a manner which renders any part of it meaninglessor redundant. If an industrial Unit covered under 1985 Dispensation whose application has been rejected or whose application has not been decided or is pending is permitted to opt under 1989 Scheme and if it has already been granted benefit under 1987 Scheme is permitted to shift to 1989 Scheme, clause (d) would be applicable. Sub Clause (b) will be rendered meaningless and of no purpose. On the other hand, in the totality of the Scheme, it appears that the benefit of concession made available to an industrial unit governed under 1985 Dispensation, were confined to availing of benefit of 1985 Dispensation or under 1987 Scheme. It has not further been extended to avail benefit under the Scheme promulgated in the year 1989 almost four years after coming into existence. The reason appears to be obvious that an industrial unit which has already come into existence four years before and has sufficiently long period to establish itself whether has availed or has not availed the benefit under the available Scheme it was not found necessary to extend further benefit at that distance of time only for the purpose of building up of their capital.
(16). We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the benefit of 1989 Scheme cannot be extended to new industrial unit in question which has started their commercial production prior to commencement of 1987 Scheme but after 1.4.85 and if at all they could get the benefit they could get only under 1987 Scheme.
(17). The question which arise is whether the Dist. Level Screening Committee could treat the application under 1987 Scheme made after rejection of earlier application for exercising their option to be moved under 1987 Scheme within lime prescribed.
(18). The answer in our opinion ought to be in the negative. Firstly the application for exercising option was filed after expiry of period prescribed under 1987 Scheme. The application was not maintainable under 1989 Scheme and transactions under 1987 Scheme having been closed, no power was given to Dist. Level Screening Committee to reopen the case and to hear the application on merits by deemed condonation of delay apart from the fact that Dist. Level Screening Committee had no jurisdiction to review its earlier order of rejection.
(19). We are further of the opinion that while considering the application under 1987 Scheme.it had no power to condone the delay in exercise of option beyond time prescribed under the Act. It may be noticed that while it was a case where any concession was made available to new industrial unit which commenced commercial production on or after 5.3.87, but to industrial unit established on or after 1.4.85 but before commencement of Incentive Scheme 1987 the first time, 1985 Dispensation itself gave certain concession to the industrial unit by enabling it to obtain loan against the tax collected by it for a period and availing Interest Free Sales Tax Loan for a period as is available under the Deferment Scheme. It was absolutely within the domain of dealer concerned covered under 1985 dispensation to exercise his option to continue to avail the benefit under 1985 Scheme or under the Incentive Scheme 1987 or 1987 Deferment Scheme. For the purpose of switching over from 1985 Dispensation to 1987 Scheme, a dead line was prescribed which the respondents. Unit did not meet. In these circumstances, in absence of any power to extend the period for exercise of option by the industrial unit covered under 1985 dispensalion or to condone the delay, when application was filed beyond the prescribed time, there was no authority with the Dist. Level Screening Committee to have entertained the application.
(20). In this connection, the learned counsel for the respondehls has relied on the decision of this Court reported as Bajaj Industries vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. (1), and on the decision of Bajaj Industries vs. Dist. Level Screening Committee and ors. (2), for contending that notwithstanding there being no provision, the Dist. Level Screening Committee ought to have exercised inherent jurisdiction to condone thedelay and if the Dist. Level Screening Committee had committed a mistake by cnter-laining the second application on merits after condoning the delay, this Court ought not to interfere. We are unable to sustain this contention also. In the two cases referred to above by the learned counsel for the respondents which arose in the matter of same party, apart from the fact that the facts of the two cases were not at par with the present case, no general principle as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents is disernable from the same. In those two cases, the dealer who had started commercial production of its new industrial unit after 1.4.85 but before 5,3.87 had infact made an application within limitation in the first instance to avail the benefit of Defertrnenl Scheme. However, since the petitioner did not qualify to avail the Deferment Scheme, 1987 because its eligible capital investment fell short of the required minimum, it made an application for switching over to the incentive scheme of 1987 which it.could also avail. Thus though application for switching over from Deferment Scheme to the Incentive Scheme was made beyond period prescribed for exercise of option the basic application to avail benefits under 1987 Scheme has in fact been made within time prescribed. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the Court held that the application lor grant of eligibility certificate ought to have been decided on merits. It is obvious that the facts of the present case are distinguishable in as much as in the aforesaid two decisions the application for exercise of option under 1987 Scheme instead of availing advantage of 1985 Dispensation were made by the assessee within limitation. It is because of some technical flaw in the application which made him ineligible he applied to switch over to the other scheme under which he was eligible. Therefore, it could very well be said that option in that case was exercised within time and no real question for extension arose before the Court.
(21). The facts of the case in Fertilizer Corporation of India Lid. vs. State of Bihar (3), are also not applicable in the present case. A perusal of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. goes to show that the Court was dealing with a situation where though there was provision for extension of period for filing returns, but the power vested in the assessing authority was questioned because no application for extension of time for filing return having been made by the assessee, he was not eligible to claim rebate under Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Court further found that though there was few days delay in submitting quarterly returns, the assesseee in fact has deposited the entire tax on the taxable turn-over disclosed in return within lime as and when it became due under the Act. When the rejection of the claim of the rebate on the ground of want of proper extension application for extending time for filing re turns, the mailer came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court at the instance of assessee. The Court held that 'the object of Section 15 of the Act is to confer a benefit on an assessee for prompt payment of the tax.'
(22). It may be noticed that the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not the one where the basis authority in the statute for extending the period for filing returns and acceptance of late returns was lacking. That the statute did make such provision to extend time but laid no procedure prescribing any manner for extending period nor prescribed requirement for filing any application at all in the statute. Whereas in the Scheme of 1987, there is no provision for accepting the application filed beyond the period as envisaged under the Scheme for exercise of option. It is further to be noticed that object of requirement for filing of returns under Bihar Sales Tax Act was limited to ensure Ihc payment ol tax within time before the benefit filing of returns was procedural aspect providing edifice on which demand in time could be inferred.
(23). We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal clearly erred in treating the application filed for grant of benefit under Incentive Scheme, 1989 after the application was rejected under 1987 Scheme as application under 1987 scheme in-as-much as no application was permissible to have been filed by the respondentsunder 1989 Scheme and once the application under 1987 Scheme was rejected, the Dist. Level Screening Committee was left with no jurisdiction to entertain any further application and decide the same on merits, under 1987 Scheme. Consequently, the Tribunal was not right in treating the application to have been filed under 1987 Scheme and decide the same on merits.
(24). As a result the petition is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal dated 17.9.98 is set aside and the order passed by Dist. Level Screening Commiliee is restored.
(25). No Costs.