TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (6) TMI 514
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....artment passed an assessment order in respect of petitioner in Writ Petition No. 221 of 1992 for the period from 1-1-1988 to 31-3-1989 and made a demand note ignoring the fixed capital investment by the petitioner. Respondent No. 2. State Industrial and Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (SICOM., for short) in Writ Petition No. 317 of 1993 wrote to the petitioner therein by the impugned letter dated 18-1-1993 that the eligibility certificate entitled the petitioner to claim 90% of the estimated capital cost of Rs. 614 lacs, which came to Rs. 552.60 lacs only and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to claim exemption to the extent of Rs. 652.13 lacs, which the petitioner had sought. Aggrieved by these adverse communication....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner Vinod established a factory for PVC pipes. The petitioner was granted eligibility certificate by the Development Corporation of Vidarbha Limited, which is annexed as Annexure-B to the petition, showing that the petitioner proposed to make fixed capital investment of Rs. 3,08,000/-for the purpose of the 1979 Scheme of Sales Tax Incentives. The petitioner has annexed a certificate of entitlement issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax at Annexure-C to the petition, which mentions that the certificate would be valid for a period from 15-3-1985 to 14-3-1994, i.e. for nine years, and that the petitioner would be entitled to total cumulative sales tax incentives by way of exemption subject to a ceiling of 100% of the fixed capital in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of project, or, whether such an entrepreneur would be entitled to add amounts spent in fixed capital investment even during the currency of the exemption certificate. With the help of the learned Advocates for the parties, we have gone through the original Scheme notified by Government Resolution dated 5-1-1980, as also the modified Scheme notified by Government Resolution dated 57-1982. Clause 2.5 in the 1980 Scheme reads as under: FIXED ASSETS: 2.5 The term 'Fixed Assets. covers all the assets of the unit as erected at site and includes a) Land; b) Building-and built-up area used for the eligible unit including administrative building, residential quarters, industrial housing and all such facilities provided in the build....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Clauses 5 and 6 of the Scheme. As far as the period of eligibility being nine years is concerned, there is no dispute. As regards the procedure of computation is concerned, the reference in both these clauses is to 'cumulative gross fixed capital investment with reduction of written off, etc.'. The concept of cumulative gross fixed capital investment obviously rules out the possibility of the gross fixed capital investment being restricted to amount mentioned in the eligibility certificate at the time of commencement of the activity, or availing the Scheme, obviously as ongoing addition up to prescribed time-limit of period of exemption is permitted. 10. The 1982 Scheme refers to sales tax exemptions in Clause 5. Clause 5.3 refer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ves admissible ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total cumulative 100% of Fixed 75% of the 80% of the 85% of the 90% of the sales tax Capital Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed incentive i.e. Investment Capital Capital Capital Capital sales t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 12. The learned Advocates for the petitioners drew our attention to the judgments of the Supreme Court in (i) M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported, (ii) Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Ors., (iii) Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr. , and (iv) State of Punjab v. Nestle India Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2004 SAR (Civil) 611, and the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Tapti Oil Industries and Anr. etc. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. . 13. We have carefully gone through these judgments, which lay down, first, that the Government would not be allowed to go back on a representation made by it ....