Deferment scheme eligibility failed where fixed asset investment fell below the threshold and no natural justice breach was shown.

Eligibility for deferment under the 1987 Sales Tax Deferment Scheme turned on minimum investment of Rs. 10 lakhs in fixed assets. The land component claimed by the petitioner was treated as a valuation based on RIICO rates, not actual investment, because the land had been taken on lease before the relevant period; on that basis, the investment fell below the prescribed threshold. Non-supply of the survey report did not cause prejudice because the petitioner had already been asked to explain the valuation discrepancy and the rejection rested on admitted figures and lease records. No further opportunity to opt for the 1989 Scheme was required, as the option period had expired.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to deferment benefits under the Sales Tax Deferment Scheme for Industries, 1987, and whether rejection of the eligibility application without supplying the survey report or giving a further opportunity of hearing vitiated the decision or entitled the petitioner to opt for the Sales Tax New Deferment Scheme for Industries, 1989.

Analysis: The operative requirement under the 1987 Scheme was minimum investment of Rs. 10 lakhs in fixed assets. The Court accepted the respondents' valuation of the land component, holding that the amount shown by the petitioner against land was not actual investment but only a valuation based on RIICO rates, while the land had been taken on lease long before the relevant period. On that basis, the petitioner's investment in fixed assets fell below the prescribed threshold. The Court further held that no prejudice was caused by non-supply of the survey report, since the petitioner had already been called upon to explain the land valuation discrepancy and the rejection was founded on the admitted figures in the Chartered Accountant's certificate and the lease records, not on any undisclosed material. As to the 1989 Scheme, the Court held that the petitioner had sufficient opportunity to opt for that scheme, the relevant option period had expired, and there was no legal basis to insist on a fresh opportunity before rejection under the 1987 Scheme.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not eligible for benefits under the 1987 Scheme, there was no violation of natural justice, and no right existed to be given a further chance to opt for the 1989 Scheme.

---