9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 842X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is a dealer on the file of the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Nalgonda. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of cement in its industrial unit in Mellacheruvu Village, Nalgonda District. It initially commenced commercial production from March 23, 1998. In terms of G.O. Ms. No. 108, Industries and Commerce (IP) Department, dated May 20, 1996, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the State Level Committee issued final eligibility certificate dated November 30, 1998 allowing tax deferment for Rs. 77,37,60,980 to be availed of by the petitioner within a period of 14 years from March 23, 1998 to March 22, 2012. The petitioner, thereafter, undertook expansion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent proposed to deny the benefit of tax deferment in respect of production traceable to the unexpanded plant in its entirety. In its objections filed on August 31, 2009, the petitioner contended that there being no controversy whatsoever with regard to its entitlement to claim the benefit of tax deferment in respect of production referable to the unexpanded plant, their action in claiming tax deferment in respect of the base production of 1,98,000 Mts per annum, traceable to the original unit, was legally valid. The petitioner contended that there was no requirement, in the target 2000 scheme, to dissect and furnish the production traceable to the original unit and the expanded project distinctly for claiming the benefit, that it was huma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... panded unit though up to a limit of 1,98,000 MTs per annum. Alternatively, it is contended that the petitioner is required to segregate the quantities referable to the original unit and the expanded unit which they could have done by adopting a notional or proportionate method, whichever was appropriate/relevant, for bifurcating the quantities depending upon the original installed capacities or production achieved on a month to month basis referable to the original unit and the expanded unit. He would place reliance on the judgment of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in Kanti Brothers v. State of A.P. [1990] 11 APSTJ 201 to contend that wherever material is available from which proportionate quantities can be ascertained then that benefit h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
