9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the petitioner - a registered dealer on the file of the first respondent under the provisions of the then Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short, the Act) challenging the common order dated 23.10.2002 passed in O.P.Nos. 682 to 684 of 2002 by the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai (for brevity, the Tribunal). 2. We have elaborately heard Mr.N.Inbarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.G.Dhanamadhri, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.Ramesh Venkatachalapathy,, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. 3. The petitioner challenged the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer namely the first respondent herein confirming the proposal in the notice dated 18. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rage more industries in the State of Tamil Nadu, decided to grant several concessions to industries, which were to be started in 75 backward taluks i.e other than 30 most backward taluks from among the 150 backward taluks. The Government also thought fit to grant certain benefits to the existing units undertaking expansion or diversification, for whom, the deferral of sales tax would be given for nine years and the total amount thus given should not exceed 80% of the additional investment made in fixed assets. The Government Order further stated that the application for IFST deferral scheme should be filed before the General Manager, District Industries Centre (DIC) concerned in the case of small scale industries and before the SIPCOT in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 17.6.1993 also contained the condition that the sales tax deferral benefit was subject to the sales tax payable on products manufactured by the capacity created by expansion scheme at Melakandamangalam village, Aruppukottai Taluk, that the petitioner should continue to pay tax at the level it was paying to the Commercial Tax Department prior to taking up this expansion and that only the incremental sales tax liability that would arise due to the additional production out of the envisaged expansion scheme had to be allowed for the deferment facility. 9. Since the petitioner commenced commercial production on 01.10.1991 and though they applied for the eligibility certificate immediately and the same having been granted only on 17.6.1993, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer did not agree with the same, rejected the objections and confirmed the proposal vide proceedings dated 21.6.2002 demanding interest under Section 24(3) of the Act. Ultimately, the matter landed up before the Tribunal by way of the said original petitions. 12. Unfortunately, the Tribunal also did not take note of this factual position and more particularly the findings given in the D3 proposal, to which, the Sales Tax Department attached a very high importance. The legal issue is no longer res integra in the sense that the effect of G.O.Ms.No.119 dated 13.4.1994 qua the benefit granted to the industries under G.O.Ms.No.500 dated 14.5.1990 was considered by several Hon'ble Division Benches of this Court. 13. First of such decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irst time the Government imposed a condition for eligibility to avail deferral sales tax and this was termed as Base Production Volume (BPV) and Base Sales Volume (BSV) and in actual parlance, it has been referred to as benchmark. 15. It was argued by the Department that if the benchmark was not achieved by the concerned industry, then they were not entitled to the benefit of the deferral scheme and any availment of the same would be construed as a wrong availment. 16. The correctness of this stand was tested by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in the said decision and it was held that G.O.Ms. No.119 dated 13.4.1994 would have prospective effect. In other words, the industries, which were granted eligibility certificate in terms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posed and the reschedulement dated 31.1.1995 was only reschedulement of dates and nothing else. 19. In fact, the respondent - Department initially understood the position clearly and therefore, they did not amend the eligibility certificate by incorporating the BPV and the BSV in the eligibility certificate. We also take note of the decision of this Court in the case of M/s.Sulochana Cotton Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [reported in (1995) 98 STC 125] wherein the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court framed three questions for consideration, the first of which was with regard to scope and ambit of G.O.Ms.No.500 dated 14.5.1990 and the second question was as to what was the effect of another Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
