2000 (4) TMI 807

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... first respondent dated May 19, 1999 cancelling the benefit of deferral and also calling upon the petitioner to pay the sales tax deferral availed, in one lumpsum, along with interest. The petitioner started the industry for manufacturing of poly bags by availing the deferral scheme. Admittedly in a particular period, the petitioner, was doing only the job-work for third parties and stopped the man .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . But the learned counsel K. Jayachandran contends that the scheme itself was only to give jobs in backward areas and the petitioner was providing jobs to unemployed persons though they were doing the job-works and this nature of activity was not against the policy of the Government and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. The deferral benefit was given to the petitioner only for the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nuously for six months. Therefore, the contention that the G.O. Ms. No. 500, dated May 14, 1990 supersedes the condition No. VII(a) is unacceptable. I find no merit in this original petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. The original order, if any shall be returned to the petitioner. 2.. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced punctually observed and carr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X