9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able the Unit to collect the sales tax and retain it during its infancy and utilise the same as part of its working capital with a condition of repayment in instalments after a certain period. By the Eligibility Certificate, dated 1.6.2000, a Company, by name M/s.Servall Paper Board Limited, was granted interest free sales tax deferral benefit for a period of 10 years from 1.8.1997 to 31.07.2007, for the manufacture of Paper Board, carried on in their Unit, by the 2nd Respondent for a sum of Rs. 6324.80 lakhs. The repayment commenced from 1.8.2007 and would come to an end on 31.7.2017. With effect from 14.1.2000, M/s.Servall Paper Board Limited was taken over by M/s.Bilt Industrial Packaging Company Ltd., (BIPCO). The 2nd Respondent, by proceedings dated 18.08.2000, accorded approval for the change in the management. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone II, Coimbatore also entered into an agreement dated 8.11.2000 with BIPCO to maintain sales tax deferral facility. Accordingly, BIPCO began to enjoy the IFST benefit. Thereafter, the Petitioner, who is also engaged in the same business, was permitted to purchase and take over the Unit from BIPCO, by G.O.Ms.No.31, Indu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er regarding the dual registration with the appropriate authorities both in Coimbatore as well as Thiruvottiyur. The Petitioner was advised that as per the scheme of the Local Act and the Central Act, only a single registration was proper. Accordingly, the Commercial Tax Officer, Mettupalayam cancelled the registration certificates granted to the Unit vide his proceedings dated 9.11.2005. However, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, by his proceedings dated 22.05.2006, directed the Commercial Tax Officer, Thiruvottiyur to include the turnovers of the new Unit, while passing final assessment orders. Thereafter, by the impugned proceedings dated 9.10.2006, the 1st Respondent held that the Petitioner is not entitled to the IFST deferral benefit and required the Petitioner to make the payment of the deferral benefit already enjoyed in one lump sum. After the receipt of the impugned proceedings dated 9.10.2006, the Petitioner made a representations to the 1st Respondent dated 20.10.2006 and dated 25.10.2006, which are pending disposal. Hence, this Writ Petition has been filed for the relief as stated above. 3. The averments in a nutshell of the counter affidavit filed by the Responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stopping with the violation of the condition that no other product, than the specified, may be manufactured, the Petitioner had gone one step further to convert the product into a different commercial commodity in the others forms. Therefore, the Petitioner was not eligible for any kind of deferral of sales tax illegally assumed by them. Therefore, the agreement entered into with them in the mistaken belief that they had an eligibility certificate was void ab-initio and the deferral amounts already enjoyed by them should be recovered in one lump sum with interest upto the date of repayment. In such circumstances, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has assailed the impugned proceedings, by contending that the impugned proceedings is wholly without jurisdiction, as it has been passed contrary to the terms of G.O.Ms.No.43, Industries (MIG II) Department, dated 13.12.1992 read with G.O.Ms.No.31, Industries (MIFI) Department, dated 6.2.2003 and the agreement dated 27.5.2004 entered into by the Petitioner with the State of Tamil Nadu and that the Eligibility Certificate dated 8.12.2003 is conclusive of the rights of the Petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erms of G.O.Ms.No.43, dated 13.12.1992, GO.Ms.No.31, dated 6.2.2003, the Eligibility Certificate dated 8.12.2003 and the agreement dated 27.5.2004 and further, the impugned order has been passed without considering the documents produced by them, without prior notice or without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner, thereby violating principles of natural justice. 9. On the other hand, it is the contention of the Respondents that there is no proper approval granted to the Petitioner for transfer of deferral facility and that the original Eligibility Certificate holder did not avail any deferral facility and that after transfer, BIPCO had no right to transfer the Eligibility Certificate in the absence of any concurrence or consent from the Government agency. Therefore, the Eligibility Certificate originally granted to M/s.Servall Paper Board Limited is not co-extendable to the subsequent buyers. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled to such deferral facility and is liable to pay the deferral amounts. 10. As per the G.O.Ms.No.43, dated 13.12.1992, the Units with investments between Rs. 50 crores and below Rs. 100 crores are eligible for tax waiver or deferral benefits for 10 yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
