TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (12) TMI 849
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x on the sale of the finished goods manu- factured by the expansion unit of the petitioner with effect from March 1, 2000 up to February 28, 2005 in accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 500 dated May 14, 1990. 2.. By G.O. Ms. No. 500 dated May 14, 1990, with the laudable object of encouraging industrialisation in State of Tamil Nadu in the more backward areas, the Government announced certain schemes for the entrepreneurs who came forward to locate their industries in such areas which included waiver of tax liability under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act with reference to the inter-State sales. As per the said Government order, under clause 7, the application for interest-free sales tax deferral should b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceeding Rs. 232.35 lakhs (rupees two hundred and thirty-two lakhs and thirty five thousand only) under the waiver scheme for the five years from the month in which the holder's unit commenced its commercial produc- tion, i.e., from March 1, 2000 to February 28, 2005. 5.. In paragraph No. 4.2, it was certified that 100 per cent of the value of the initial gross fixed assets was Rs. 232.35 lakhs. Inasmuch as the said eligibility certificate provided for waiver of sales tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, additional sales tax, surcharge and additional surcharge, thus leaving out the Central sales tax payable by the petitioner on the inter-State sales, the petitioner is stated to have approached the first respondent for inclusion....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Government order, there being no definite material to substantiate the claim of the petitioner that his unit got registered with an industrial agency of the State/Central Government and that as per clause (iii)(d) of paragraph No. 4, the petitioner not having started the production within two years from the date of the said Government order, the first respondent was fully justified in not including the Central sales tax entitlement in the eligibility certificate dated December 2, 2000. The learned counsel would contend that even as per the said eligi- bility certificate, dated December 2, 2000, when the certificate of eligibility was subject to the prevailing conditions of the State Government that are in force and/or that may com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... December 4, 1990. 10.. In any event, in my opinion as far as the G.O. Ms. No. 13 dated January 24, 2000, which was relied upon by the first respondent to state that the petitioner was not eligible for relief of Central sales tax is concerned, it will have to be held that the said Government order is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. With regard to the extent of the investment made by the petitioner, it is far below the minimum provided under the relevant notifications, viz., 210 of 1992 and 211 of 1992, with reference to which G.O. Ms. No. 13 dated January 24, 2000 came to be issued. As far as G.O. Ms. No. 12 dated January 23, 2000 is concerned, even on a perusal of the said Government order, I do not find that the petitione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner that commercial production commenced in the month of March, 2000. Even in the impugned communication, it is not the case of the first respondent that the petitioner did not commence commercial production within the two years period. The very fact that the impugned order dated March 15, 2001 itself stating that the petitioner commenced commer- cial production after January 23, 2000, makes it clear that the petitioner had already started the commercial production, thereby satisfying even that condition under clause 4(iii)(d). 13.. In such circumstances, it is not proper to hold that the petitioner is not eligible for the relief of Central sales tax as provided in the basic Government Orders, namely, G.O. Ms. No. 500 dated May 14,....