Disputed eligibility under an incentive scheme requires factual verification before entitlement can be finally determined.

Entitlement to sales tax incentive benefits could not be finally determined because the record lacked the application and certificate said to support commencement of production, and the claimed dates were closely proximate to the change in the incentive regime. In view of the incomplete material and the disputed authenticity of the claim, the Court held that the assessee's eligibility under the incentive scheme, including the effect of earlier decisions and the extent of capital investment, required fresh factual verification. The matter was therefore remanded to the Tax Board for de novo consideration after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1989, and whether the matter required remand for verification of disputed facts.

Analysis: The record did not contain the application said to have been filed on 25 March 1995 or the certificate relied upon to show commencement of production on 26 March 1995. The dates of application, production, and the change in the incentive regime were so closely proximate that the authenticity of the claim and the allegation of manipulation required closer scrutiny. The question whether the assessee satisfied the conditions of the incentive scheme, including the effect of the earlier judgments relied upon by the Tax Board and the extent of actual capital investment, could not be finally determined on the incomplete material before the Court.

Conclusion: The matter was not finally decided on merits and was remanded to the Tax Board for fresh decision after verification of the relevant facts and grant of opportunity of hearing.

Final Conclusion: The revision was disposed of by setting aside the impugned decision to the extent necessary and sending the matter back for de novo consideration on the disputed eligibility issue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where material facts essential to eligibility under an incentive scheme are disputed and the record is incomplete, the proper course is to remand the matter for factual verification rather than finally deciding entitlement on merits.

---