1986 (6) TMI 236

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....000 per annum. In this writ petition it seeks a mandamus from this Court to the State of Andhra Pradesh and other respondents to sanction interest-free sales tax loan as per the terms and conditions of G.O. Ms. No. 224, Industries Department, dated 9th March, 1976, as extended by G.O. Ms. No. 736 dated 28th December, 1981. The case of the petitioner is that the abovementioned Orders of the Government issued from time to time envisage the grant of certain monetary incentives to such of those entrepreneurs who set up their industries in backward areas of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Among those incentives, we are concerned in this writ petition with the grant of sales tax loan which should be equal to the tax paid by the industry under the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....st-free sales tax loan runs to Rs. 1,15,55,275 whereas the grant made by the State Level Committee is only Rs. 10,00,000. Thus arises the present dispute. The writ petition has, therefore, been filed to compel the State Government to grant the company interest-free sales tax loan of Rs. 1,15,55,275. The Government in its counter disputed the value of the fixed assets of the petitioner-company. But its substantive defence is that the State Level Committee has reduced on 5th December, 1978, the maximum eligibility limits of these companies for the amount of these incentives and that according to these revised limits of eligibility no industry with fixed capital cost of one crore and above would get more than Rs. 10,00,000 interest-free sal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bing the ordinary people of their meagre resources and transferring them to the so-called industries. It is not at all clear in economic terms that the setting up of these industries can solve the problem of unemployment. But unfortunately these are not the considerations on the basis of which I can decided this case. I am only here concerned with the question whether the earlier G.Os., viz., G.O. Ms. Nos. 224, 736, are in any way validly superseded. Mr. Suryanarayana Moorthy has not been able to show me that those G.Os. have been superseded by any subsequent valid orders of the Government. I do not consider the State Level Committee is competent to make any valid orders superseding or amending the above G.Os. In view of the above, I hav....