Rajesh Balia, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This petition is directed against the order passed by District Level Screening Committee dated 14th October, 1998 by which the certificate of completion of application issued to the petitioner's new unit on 25.9.1998 was cancelled and the application for considering the case of the new unit for sanctioning the benefit under the New Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1989 was returned by expressing its inability to grant the same because the unit is established in a rented premises. This was stated to have been done on the basis of decision conveyed by the Addl. Director (Industries) vide his communication dated 25.9.1998.
3. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the conditions for eligibility to avail benefit under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme of 1987 or the New Sales Tax Incentive Scheme of 1989 do not envisage any such requirement on the part of the entrepreneur to establish the new industrial unit on a self owned land and not on rented premises. In the absence of any such condition spelt out in the notification issued under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, which is a piece of subordinate legislation, no additional conditions de hors the requirement of the scheme can be imposed for availing the benefit, if all the conditions envisaged under the scheme have been fulfilled by the applicant. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's application is wholly unwarranted.
4. Learned counsel for the Revenue reiterated the reasons stated by the Addl. Director in his communication on assumed premises that ordinarily the rented premises are for a period of 11 months and there is no guarantee for continuance of the production by the new industrial unit for five years, the minimum period before which unit must not stop production of goods. Therefore, such application need not be considered.
5. Having given my careful consideration to the rival contentions, I am of the opinion that this petition merits acceptance.
6. Firstly, there is no warrant for inventing new prohibitions and eligibility conditions for considering an application for sanctioning the benefit under the New Incentive Scheme issued under Section 4 de hors the provisions of the Scheme by any authority through its executive flat. The State Level Screening Committee as well as the District Level Screening Committee have been assigned the task to consider the applications in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme but they have not been provided with the authority of improvising on the conditions of the Scheme spelt out in the Notification. It must be remembered that most of the lands which are made available for industrial unit for industrial development in the State are made available by the RIICO and those lands are made available only on lease-hold rights and even the Urban Improvement Trust, wherever makes available the land for new construction for residential as well as commercial purposes also makes such land available only on lease-hold basis. Therefore, to exclude the industrial units installed on rented premises or leased premises otherwise not prohibited under the Scheme, could not be envisaged by the State level Screening Committee or the District Level Screening Committee. Even there is no foundation to raise a presumption that a lease created from month to month or for a period shorter than five years, would necessarily come to an end every month or at the expiry of shorter period than five years. On the other hand, the common experience shows that such leases ordinarily continue for indefinite period unless terminated in accordance with law by the lessor or abandoned by the lessee. Ordinarily, when a lease is granted for the use of the property for commercial purposes, it is not expected that the commercial unit established on such rented premises would expire in a short duration. The consideration for providing lesser period of lease ordinarily is anything but to seek eviction on the expiry of such short periods, or closure of business undertakings as short durations.
7. Be that as it may, the State Level Screening Committee was not warranted to make a general denial of consideration of the applications for registration of the new industrial unit which has been established on a rented premises on such assumed premise. It may further be noticed that the condition that a new industrial unit in order to be entitled to avail the benefit of incentive it must continue to be in existing and operate for a minimum period prescribed. It is also provided as a consequence that if the production is closed before the minimum period prescribed for that purpose the incentive can be withdrawn. Therefore, there was no premise to start with entertaining this apprehension that an industrial unit established on a rented premises will not be able to avail the benefit for the full period and therefore, it must be denied consideration at the threshold, lest the same may have to be withdrawn prematurely. On the other hand, in the eventuality that an industrial unit is not able to run for the minimum prescribed period it may lose the benefit granted to it originally but that contingency arise only in the event of discontinuance of the production during the minimum period prescribed in the Scheme but for that reason the claim of the applicant cannot be pre-empted prematurely at the stage of consideration.
8. Apart from this, the decision of the State Level Screening Committee and followed by the District Level Screening Committee is contrary to the principle enunciated by this Court in Venkateshwara Wires (T) Ltd. and Ors. v. District Level Committee and Anr. (1992) 40 STL (HC) (Raj) Page 1119. In that case, in the like circumstances, the petitioner industrial unit was denied the benefit of the Scheme because it established its unit on a rented premise. It was held by the Court:
The apprehension of the learned counsel that industries established in rented accommodation may close down the industries after five years causing loss to the Department has no basis since no such example could be pointed out on behalf of the respondents... It is settled law that when decisions are taken under a particular statute/scheme/rules, the same shall be taken only in accordance with the provisions and no extraneous consideration will be considered for taking such decisions. Since in the Incentive Scheme there is no such condition/requirements, the State Level Committee has taken this decision on the basis of extraneous consideration, which it was not entitled to do.
9. As a result, this writ petition is allowed-, the impugned communicated dated 14.10.1998 (Annex. 5) as well as the directions issued by the State Level Screening Committee dated 25.9.1998 (Annx. 4) are quashed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law without taking into consideration anything de hors the provisions of the Scheme within a period of one month from the date of service of this order on them.
No Costs.