TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner. The first petitioner had set up a textile industrial unit, styling it as B Unit, at Keelarajakularaman, Rajapalayam Taluk, which is an industrially backward area. Under the policy of the Government to boost the industries and more particularly setting up of more industries in the rural areas, the Government came out with a Government Order, G.O.Ms. No.500 14-5-1990. Under the said Government Order, such industrial units which were opened in the demarcated regions contemplated by the said Government Order were to be given sales-tax deferral for certain period. Accordingly the first petitioner availed of that benefit in respect of its B unit at Keelarajakularaman. An agreement came to be executed between the petitioner company and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rral availed so far during the assessment year and it was directed not to wait for the actual due dates for the agreement already made in that regard. Another notice also came to be issued whereby the interest also came to be claimed under Sec.24(2) of the Act. The notice was challenged by the petitioner company in O.P. No.561 of 1997. 4. During the pendency of this original petition, the Special Tribunal passed an order directing the parties to resolve their disputes and enabling the petitioner company to make a representation on this behalf because the Tribunal was persuaded by the subsequent developments. The order passed by the Tribunal is as under: There is a subsequent development in the case, in the sense that a petition has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the same nature made to the Commercial Tax Officer also. The Special Tribunal, however, directed not the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, who was the authorised officer but the Commercial Tax Officer II, Rajapalayam Assessment Circle to go into the matter. It seems that the Commercial Tax Officer II, Rajapalayam has actually gone into the matter and has passed an order on 25-1-1999. In his order, the Commercial Tax Officer has given in all three reasons, viz. That the new B unit of first petitioner company has been formed as a separate entity and obtained a separate registration certificate with effect from 31-10-1996 in the name and style of Tvl. Jeyajothi Textile Mills (P) Ltd. That first petitioner company is a limited c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1997. The Tribunal also rejected the prayer to quash the order dated 25-1-1999. However, the Tribunal observed that it had given the liberty to the respondent to look into the matter and to see whether the request of the petitioner company could be accommodated. It found that though the request of the petitioner was rejected by the order dated 25-1-1999, the matter should not be foreclosed and further observed that it is still open to the respondent to look into the matter and see whether the interests of the Revenue could be protected by entering to a fresh agreement with the subsidiary company after getting a fresh eligibility certificate from SIPCOT. It seems that the Tribunals suggestions were based upon the policy of promotion of new ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriously by the learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) on behalf of the Revenue. Learned standing counsel for SIPCOT, which is also a party to these writ petitions, also did not dispute that. Though the petitioner company had made representations to SIPCOT also, SIPCOT had not decided upon the matter. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that though no fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal in so far as it is concerned with the dismissal of O.P. No.561 of 1997, regarding the recovery, it will be better if the Assistant Commissioner, who was a party to the agreement, considers the matter afresh. We are saying this for the following reasons: The Commercial Tax Officer had given predominantly three reasons, which we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irrelevant circumstance of SIPCOT not having decided the representation of the petitioner dated 10-1-1997 and not having informed the Commercial Tax Officer regarding such decision. In our opinion this is clearly an irrelevant reason. Therefore, the suggestion made by the Special Tribunal, which was really a very worthy suggestion in our opinion also, should have been given a proper thought and should have been considered in the light of the attendant circumstances like the total and complete payment of the deferred taxes by the petitioner company as also the identity of the Directors in the transferor company as well as the transferee company. We would, therefore, direct the territorial Assistant Commissioner to reconsider the representat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
