9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 20, 1996 it is claimed by the petitioner that the State Level Committee (for short, "S.L.C.") has granted eligibility certificate dated May 18, 1999 in file No. 20/3/8/0369 fixing the final eligibility of sales tax deferment to a tune of Rs. 8,38,78,720 to be availed of for a period of fourteen years, commencing from December 23, 1998 to December 22, 2012. Pursuant to the industrial policy called "Target 2000", eligible new industrial units are entitled for investment subsidy and sales tax exemption/deferment on fixed capital investment for the period ranging between 7/14 years. It is not in dispute that the S.L.C. has issued to the petitioner final eligibility certificate for the line of activity, viz., "fruit-p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal and conclusive and the commercial tax authorities are bound thereby. Relying upon the judgment of a division Bench of this court in Vetstar Agros Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [2001] 124 STC 421, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the action of the respondent-authority in denying the deferment of sales tax incentive is wholly without jurisdiction and the same warrants interference by this court. Prayer is made for setting aside the impugned order of assessment and the demand pursuant thereto, as without jurisdiction. No doubt, as contended on behalf of the first respondent, impugned order of assessment is appealable under section 19 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. However, the question in the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficate, they may pass on the same to the General Manager who is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner." In that case the writ petition was disposed of directing the Commercial Tax Officer not to coerce the petitioner to pay tax so long as the final eligibility certificate is not cancelled or modified. From the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent and the submissions on its behalf by the learned Government Pleader it would suffice to state that the same are based upon the aforesaid judgment in Vetstar's case [2001] 124 STC 421 (AP), as regards the finality attached to the eligibility certificate issued by S.L.C. Second respondent has referred to the manufacturing process of "Frooti& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ti" and this important manufacturing activity is not undertaken by the dealer. Thus, it would appear that the impugned assessment is sought to be justified mainly on the ground that the petitioner is not eligible for grant of the eligibility certificate, issued by the S.L.C. pursuant to G.O. Ms. No. 108. In the light of the judgment in Vetstar's case [2001] 124 STC 421 (AP), such a question as to the eligibility of the petitioner for grant of the eligibility certificate, being within the province of S.L.C., the same is not within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer. If, according to the first respondent-petitioner is not eligible for grant of incentive benefits under the aforesaid G.O. Ms. No. 108, then it is for the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
