9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icate issued by the third respondent. 2.. The facts in brief are as follows: Petitioner is a private limited company. A cotton spinning mill had been established by the petitioner at Kulathur, considered to be a most backward taluk in the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner applied for availing the benefit under G.O. Ms. No. 500 dated May 14, 1990. The third respondent issued eligibility certificate dated July 30, 1996 indicating that the holder of such certificate would be eligible for waiver of sales tax for a sum not exceeding Rs. 33.21 lakhs under the Sales Tax Waiver Scheme for a period of five years, from the month in which the unit commences its commercial production, i.e., December 1, 1992 to November 30, 1997. However, before s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 14,48,567. Subsequently, the fourth respondent issued order relating to benefit of Interest-free Sales Tax Scheme as per G.O. Ms. No. 500. While issuing the above said order, fourth respondent calculated Rs. 9,00,356 as the amount of taxes paid by the petitioner. The second respondent issued proceedings dated July 12, 2001 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 4,65,407, which amount reflected the purchase tax component in the entire tax paid by the petitioner during the relevant 44 months period. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the second respondent, the petitioner filed original petition before the first respondent for quashing the said direction. It was the contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal that as per the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upported the notice issued by the second respondent and has supported the order passed by the first respondent. It has been contended by him that under the Scheme, there is no provision for availing any benefit so far as payment of purchase tax is concerned and as such the amount paid towards purchase tax cannot be taken into consideration. 5.. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents at length and after going through the materials on record, we are unable to accept the submissions made by the petitioner. In the revised eligibility certificate, it had been indicated "the sales tax benefit for the period from December 1, 1997 to July 31, 2001 will be restricted to actual sales tax remitted during the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2001. It is obvious that the petitioner has accepted the revised eligibility certificate. 8.. The Tribunal while rejecting the petition of the petitioner, has considered the relevant facts and circumstances. It cannot be said that there has been any error apparent on the face of record in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9.. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, WPMP. No. 44856 of 2002 is closed. April 16, 2004: (A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy and P.K. Misra, JJ.) At the request of the petitioner, the matter has been posted today "for being mentioned". The petitioner has file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
