9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 683X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent dated October 12, 1999 and consequential proceedings of the second respondent dated March 3, 2000 and to quash the same and to permit the petitioner to continue to avail the benefit of the Interest-free Sales Tax deferral scheme. 2.. The following facts are sufficient for the disposal of the writ petition considering that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefits of interest-free sales tax deferral scheme and had also been issued an "eligibility certificate" after he had entered into an agreement with the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. 5.. The respondents have now withdrawn the said deferral scheme on the basis of the interpretation of the judgment of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. O.P. Aliyar [1992] 87 STC 339. On the basis o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e merits of the contention as to whether the judgment of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. O.P. Aliyar [1992] 87 STC 339 would apply to the petitioner and whether the activity of the petitioner can be termed as amounting to manufacture. Admitted fact discloses that no show-cause notice has been issued before the impugned orders are passed. 7.. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court, he is not able to show any authority to the effect that no show-cause notice would be necessary. 10.. I have also heard learned Government Advocate (Taxes). He would also contend that the activity of the petitioner's establishment amounted only to conversion of the property and the original characteristic of the product was not changed and there was no process of manufacture. 11.. Both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
