TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 877
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....all the three petitions have been filed by the same petitioner on the same issue. The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated May 2, 2009 passed by the Director of Industries and Commerce, Assam, followed by order dated February 14, 2010 passed by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam under the provisions of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and consequential assessment order. Case of the petitioner is that he is engaged in the business of manufacturing lubricating and fuel oil out of used oil. As per the Industrial Policy of 2003, sales tax exemption for seven years was permissible to eligible units. The petitioner, claiming to be eligible, applied for the said benefit, which was considered in accordance with the industrial policy and the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. Name of the finished products (item)s 1. Lubricating oil 2. Fuel oil Name of raw materials 1. Used oil 2. Waste oil 3. Chemicals On the basis of the above particulars, the activity of the petitioner was treated to be manufacturing, treating the finished product to be different from raw material. Inspite of this, in the impugned order, it has been held that no manufacturing was involved and exemption granted was liable to be cancelled. The order passed by the Director of Industries refers to the order of the Commissioner of Taxes, taking a view that since no new commodity emerges, no manufacturing is involved. The principle has been applied to the case of the petitioner as follows: "It is found that there ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this court in Deepak Kumar Poddar v. State of Assam [2010] 31 VST 8 (Gauhati); [2010] 6 GLR 835, holding that conversion of raw mustard oil into mustard oil did not involve manufacturing. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the Industries Department as well as the Sales Tax Department took the view that conversion of used oil into lubricating oil or fuel oil entitled the petitioner to tax incentives which the petitioner acted upon, it was not permissible to change the opinion on the basis of judgment of this court, which was distinguishable. The learned counsel for the State submitted that the eligibility certificate granted could be cancelled at any time, even if the bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficate and certificate of entitlement." The above clause clearly lays down that eligibility certificate once granted can be cancelled only if there is violation of any condition or information furnished was found to be false or if certificate was obtained by fraud or misstatement or suppression. The impugned order does not show either the allegation of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression on the part of the petitioner nor violation of any of the condition of the eligibility. Only ground on which eligibility certificate has been terminated is the change of opinion as to the eligibility of the petitioner to get the benefit. This course is clearly ultra vires the power conferred under clause 12 of the 2005 Order, referred to above. This ....