2010 (11) TMI 891

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e eligibility certificate issued for Interest Free Sales Tax Deferral Scheme by fixing the base production volume and base sales volume as per the petitioner's representation dated January 10, 2008. The petitioner, who is manufacturing cotton and synthetic yarn, went in for the Interest Free Deferral Scheme for a period of nine years in respect of the expanded unit. By proceedings dated June 18, 2002, the second respondent granted the eligibility certificate, granting deferral of sales tax not exceeding Rs. 512.22 lakhs for nine years from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2009. The repayment schedule commenced from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2018. Paragraph 5.3 of the certificate stipulated that the petitioner would be eligible for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ings dated May 5, 2004, citing G.O. Ms. No. 119, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment Department dated April 13, 1994, that the base production volume cannot be amended. The representations of the petitioner reveal that the petitioner sought for an exclusion of the export turnover as well as the turnover relating to the consignment turnover to be excluded from the sales turnover, so that the benefit of fixing the sales turnover is restricted to the actual taxable turnover. Be that as it may, the petitioner, confronted by the letter dated May 5, 2004, once again made a representation before the Government in its letter dated January 10, 2008, wherein the petitioner pointed out to the representation made to correct the incorrectly fixed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eliberation before the High Level Committee, the eligibility certificate was amended. As far as the present case of the petitioner is concerned, the request made originally for amendment was granted to the petitioner as regards the base sales volume and base production volume for domestic sales for the year 1998-99. Since the petitioner's request had already been complied with, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Based on the above averment in the additional counter filed by the second respondent, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that going by the averment in paragraph 5 of the additional counter that the decision had to come from the High Level Committee, the plea of the petitioner should have been place....