9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (6) TMI 807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he expansion of the unit leading to increase in production of cement took place with effect from February 15, 1995. Under the deferment of sales tax scheme, the petitioner-company was entitled for deferment of sales tax/tax-holiday even in respect of additional quantity produced consequent to the expansion of its unit. The petitioner-company, therefore, applied for deferment of the sales tax on August 10, 1995. The said application was filed before the Commissioner of Industries, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the 3rd respondent herein. The third respondent on consideration of the said application issued the proceeding No. 20/3/6/0734, dated May 15, 1996. It reads: GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH COMMISSIONERATE OF INDUSTRIES Office of the Commissioner of Industries, A.P., Hyderabad No. 20/3/6/0734 Dated: 15-5-96 Final eligibility certificate fixing up eligibility for sales tax deferment/ sales tax exemption for expansion New Comprehensive scheme of State Incentive Scheme, 1992. G.O. Ms. No. 117 Ind Com (IFR) Dept. dt. 17-3-1993 and G.O. Ms. No. 386 Ind Com (IFR) Dept. dt. 26-9-1994 1. Name of the Indl. unit: M/s. Madras Cements Ltd. 2. Full address (with pin cod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner-company to pay sales tax of Rs. 14,06,100 for the month of April, 1997 within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice while administering the threat that if the petitionercompany fails to pay the tax as demanded, action would be taken in terms of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder. In the same notice, the petitioner was also informed that it is liable to pay the entire monthly tax till it crosses 3,33,600 metric tonnes and only when that target is reached, the company is eligible to avail the facility of deferment of sales tax. Hence, this writ petition assailing the validity of the circular dated May 12, 1997 issued by the 2nd respondent and the notice issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Nandigama, fifth respondent herein dated June 20, 1997, as well as G.O. Ms. No. 18, dated January 30, 1997. 3.. Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed two contentions before us for consideration. The first contention is that the tax paid by the petitioner pending the issuance of the final eligibility certificate for the period from February 15, 1996 to April 30, 1996 is required to be adjusted towards the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od from February 15, 1996 to April 30, 1996 is required to be adjusted against the future sales tax dues payable only after the expiry of the eligibility period in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 18, dated January 30, 1997, and if so, whether such a prescription in G.O. Ms. No. 18, dated January 30, 1997 would render it invalid and illegal as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The second question that arises for our consideration is whether G.O. Ms. No. 18, dated January 30, 1997 is prospective only and it has no application to the facts of this case. 5.. The Government of Andhra Pradesh by issuing G.O. Ms. No. 117, Industries and Commerce Department, dated March 17, 1993 introduced the New Comprehensive Scheme of State Incentives (NCSSI 92) for new industries with effect from October 3, 1992. The scheme, inter alia, provides sales tax concession to the existing industries undertaking substantial expansion/modernisation/diversification for a period of 10 years from the date of deferment for the original unit. Para 5B(iii) of the above G.O. stipulates that the existing industrial units who have been allowed sales tax deferment under the earlier deferment scheme would be el ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to diversification will be termed as original investment which excludes depreciation and revaluation. [Base turnover: The best annual turnover in terms of value in the preceding three years period to expansion/modernisation/ diversification is termed as base turnover.] 6.. In terms of the final eligibility certificate and G.O. Ms. No. 386, the deferment of sales tax has to be claimed on the basis of the annual production and not on the basis of the monthly production because the final eligibility certificate only gives the total quantum of sales tax deferment and it does not contain any direction that the deferment can be claimed on the basis of the monthly average production. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the circular dated May 12, 1997 issued by the second respondent and that circular is in conformity with the final eligibility certificate issued by the third respondent. If the contention of the petitioner that the deferment can be claimed on the basis of the monthly average production is accepted, that would tantamount to alteration of the very terms and conditions of the eligibility certificate. As per the eligibility certificate, deferment has to be claimed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of SIPC meeting held on 8-1-1997. 5. Minutes of SIPC meeting held on 18-1-1997. ORDER: In the G.O. first read above, Government has introduced certain incentives for setting up of new industries in the State under ISIS, 1989. 2.. In the G.O., second read above, Government have introduced New comprehensive scheme State incentives for setting up of new industries in A.P. under NCSSI, 1992. 3.. In the G.O. third read above, Government introduced a scheme of State incentives for setting up of new industries in the State, under "TARGET 2000". 4.. Several industrial units have represented that due to delay in issue of final eligibility certificate they have already paid sales tax during the intervening period between the date of expiry of temporary eligibility certificate and date of final sanction of sales tax eligibility on demand from Commercial Taxes Department and have requested that the amount so paid may be adjusted against future dues, after expiry of the final eligibility certificate in case it is not possible to refund the sales tax already paid. 5.. The proposal was placed before the SIPB meeting held on 18-1-1997 and the Board approved the proposals for adjus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laimed even adjustment of the tax paid by them Here italicised. pending issuance of the eligibility certificate even after the expiry of the final eligibility certificate. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the second contention too. Similarly, we do not find merit in the contention of the learned counsel that the direction issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 18, dated January 30, 1997 that the tax paid pending issuance of final eligibility certificate would be adjusted against the future sales tax dues payable only after the expiry of the eligibility period is irrational and violative of article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner has no vested right to claim that the tax paid by it pending issuance of final eligibility certificate should be adjusted before the expiry of the period of final eligibility. The learned counsel for the petitioner has utterly failed to trace such right with reference to any provision of the Constitution or that of any statute or even otherwise. The petitioner can only claim the incentives provided under the relevant G.Os. only within the parameters of those G.Os. and not de hors the G.Os. on the basis of the principles of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the assessment year 1991-92 to the petitioner. The relief sought by the petitioner in that writ petition was not opposed by the respondents therein. The division Bench of this Court disposed of that writ petition by the following order: "The petitioner has to get certain amount by way of refund in pursuance of Tribunal's order dated April 12, 1994. As per rule 35 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957, the first respondent was obliged to give effect to that order within two months from the date of receipt of the order. We do not know when the copy of the order was received by the first respondent. Several opportunities were given to the learned Government Pleader to inform us about the date when the Tribunal's order was communicated to the first respondent and why there was delay in making the refund. We are informed that in spite of repeated requests and reminders, the first respondent has not cared even to contact the Government Pleader and that is how we are not in a position to know about the exact date of receipt of Tribunal's order by the first respondent. However, we believe that the order must have been received by the first respondent in the month of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
