TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (3) TMI 328
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was new industrial unit, it applied for the grant of eligibility certificate under the said scheme. The petitioner also submitted a certificate dated October 15, 1987, of its Chartered Accountant M/s. B.L. Bhojwani and Associates, to the respondent No. 2, i.e., District Level Screening Committee, mentioning therein the value of the fixed assets at Rs. 19,80,983.54. The respondent No. 2 after perusing the application of the petitioner, recommended its case for grant of eligibility certificate to the respondent No. 3. The petitioner was granted eligibility certificate from January 28, 1988 to January 19, 1989, and subsequently the same was renewed from time to time up to January 19, 1991. The eligibility certificate is annexed with the writ p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4, 1991, addressed to the respondent No. 2, copy of which was also sent to the respondent No. 3, requested the respondent No. 2 for giving complete details of deductions/ disallowances, made out of the value of fixed assets in order to enable it to plan its future course of action. The petitioner also requested the respondent No. 3 that the proceedings envisaged by it be kept in abeyance as the petitioner had approached in this connection to the respondent No. 2. The petitioner also submitted a review petition before the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2, vide its order dated January 28, 1992, marked annexure 9, rejected the said review petition and held that according to the scheme submitted by the petitioner, it was entitled to sales....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioner argued that along with its application, it submitted a certificate of Chartered Accountant, showing the total capital investment in the industrial unit to the extent of Rs. 19,80,983.54. Under these circumstances, the petitioner was entitled to get sales tax exemption up to 85 per cent of this amount. The respondents allowed exemption application and granted it exemption under the scheme but the amount was not specified. The petitioner also requested the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 from time to time for renewal of its application and to specify the amount for which exemption was granted to it but at no stage the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 informed the petitioner about the total amount fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity certificate was valid from January 20, 1988 to January 19, 1989, subject to maximum limit of exemption. The review application of the petitioner was rejected rightly. There was no necessity of giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the time of fixing the total amount of exemption or while deciding the review application. From the various applications submitted by the petitioner from time to time as mentioned in para No. 5 of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner requested the respondent No. 2 to inform it about the total limit of sales tax exemption granted to it. The facts mentioned in para No. 5 of the writ petition have not been denied by the respondents. Under these circumstances, I presume that....