9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1027X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act has to be set aside. Consequently the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. - W.P. No. 4627 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 23-3-2010 - CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. ORDER:- MRS. CHITRA VENKATARAMAN J. The petitioner herein availed of the benefit of interest-free sales tax deferral as a new industry under G.O. Ms. No. 500 dated May 14, 1990. The facility was available for a period of nine years commencing from 1992-2001. The petitioner stated that it had also started repaying the loan from the year 2001. Thereafter, the petitioner once again moved for interest-free sales tax deferral in respect of the expanded unit by making additional investment of Rs. 45.49 lakhs. The TIIC accordingly issued the eligibility ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the issuance of notice of recovery of interest under section 24(3) of the Act. It is stated by the petitioner s counsel that the petitioner had already remitted the tax portion. The grievance herein is only as regards the demand for interest under section 22(3) of the Act. Challenging the said demand as contrary to the eligibility certificate and to the agreement, the petitioner is before this court. Referring to clauses 4.1 and 4.2 of the eligibility certificate, learned counsel pointed out that when the agreement does not specify as a condition for grant of deferral that the petitioner should maintain the base volume of production/sales, the insistence on compliance with the said conditions by the first respondent is totally ille ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liability accruing in favour of the Government during the period of deferral on the sale of finished goods manufactured by the unit. 4.2 80 per cent of the value of the initial gross fixed assets, i.e., Rs. 36.39 lakhs. (Fixed assets created under expansion scheme Rs. 45.49 lakhs. 80 per cent works out at Rs. 36.39 lakhs). The agreement entered into with the Sales Tax Department in respect of the expanded unit shows that the petitioner would be entitled to the deferral scheme from September 11, 1998 to September 10, 2007 and that the repayment schedule starts from 2007-08 to 2015-16. The agreement also fixed the monetary ceiling on the deferral at Rs. 36.39 lakhs of actual sales tax payable by the dealer. The agreement further state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to accept the stand of the Revenue that the petitioner had failed to maintain the base volume of production or sales. When there is no indication in the agreement entered as to the extent of tax payable as a benchmark, given the fact that the parent unit was a new unit and was under the scheme of deferral when the expanded unit was granted the eligibility certificate and hence there could be no benchmark, the proceedings initiated demanding interest, hence, has to be set aside. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, pointed out that the petitioner had paid the entire deferral liability in order to avoid further precipitation in the matter even before the payment schedule started. I agree with the submission of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
