Tax incentive claims must be assessed in the category applied for, and expansion claims cannot be recast as new-unit claims without proof.

A tax incentive claim under the 1998 exemption scheme was assessed on the basis of the category in which the application was made. The application and project report indicated expansion of an existing unit with additional investment, so the authorities were entitled to treat it as an expansion claim rather than as a claim for a new industrial unit. The record did not establish that the wrong form had been filed or that a subsequent application for new-unit status had been proved. On that basis, the rejection of relief by the screening committee and the Tax Board was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to tax incentive under the 1998 exemption scheme when the original application was filed in the expansion category, and whether the authorities erred in refusing to treat it as a claim for a new industrial unit.

Analysis: The application and project report showed that the claim was made for expansion of an existing unit and for additional investment over and above the existing unit. The authorities were required to decide the claim in the category in which it was made, and the later plea that the wrong form had been filed was not established on the record. The order also did not show that a subsequent application for the new industrial unit category had been proved so as to require consideration in these proceedings.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to relief on the basis of the expansion application, and no error was found in the rejection of the claim by the screening committee and the Tax Board.

---