Court quashes amendment orders reducing exemption percentage, citing violation of fundamental rights.

The Court allowed the petition, quashing the amendment orders reducing the exemption percentage from 50% to 45% for the petitioner's industry. The Court held that retrospectively amending the certificates violated the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution. The impugned orders issued by the Sales-tax Officer and Assistant Commissioner of Sales-tax were set aside.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to amendment order reducing sales-tax exemption percentage from 50% to 45% for petitioner's industry.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged an amendment order issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales-tax, reducing the sales-tax exemption from 50% to 45% for the petitioner's industry in a specific growth center.
2. The State Government had earlier categorized growth centers into different grades, with varying levels of sales-tax exemption, and the petitioner's industry was initially classified as being in a "C" grade growth center, thus eligible for a 50% exemption.
3. The petitioner received eligibility and exemption certificates in 1983 based on being in a "C" grade growth center, which allowed them to avail the sales-tax exemption benefits until the limit was exhausted by 1986.
4. However, in 1990, the authorities amended the certificates, reducing the exemption percentage to 45% based on a change in the grading of the growth center, leading to a reduction in the exemption limit.
5. The petitioner argued that they had acted in reliance on the original certificates, not collecting sales-tax from customers and exhausting the exemption limit, making it impractical to recover the additional tax from past transactions.
6. The respondents contended that the amendment was justified due to the industry's proximity to a different grade growth center, limiting the exemption to 45%.
7. The Court found that the authorities could not retrospectively amend the certificates to take away vested benefits from the petitioner without violating their fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution.
8. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, quashing the amendment orders reducing the exemption percentage and setting aside the impugned orders issued by the Sales-tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner of Sales-tax.

This detailed analysis outlines the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the reasoning behind the Court's decision to uphold the petitioner's challenge to the amendment order reducing the sales-tax exemption percentage for their industry.

---