2019 (5) TMI 120

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ficate given by the 2nd respondent has been in force, the 1st respondent cannot demand the sales tax for the deferral period from the petitioner. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a registered dealer on the file of the Commercial Tax Department. While so, the State of Tamil Nadu has issued G.O.Ms.No.500, Industries Department, dated 14.5.1990, granting the benefit of deferral of sales tax with a view to promote the industries. The General Manager of District Industries Centre, Thiruvallur, the 2nd respondent herein also by his Proceedings dated 10.7.2001 in RC.No.12524/A4/99 granted a Certificate of Eligibility to the petitioner for deferral of sales tax to a maximum amount of Rs. 93,4....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... proposes to cancel the sale tax deferral which would result in the requirement to pay a sum of Rs. 10,53,912/- in one lump sum along with interest at 2%. But the said communication was not given to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was not able to comply with the same which resulted in passing the impugned order. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner referring to the impugned order would submit that the only ground on which the present impugned order passed shows that the petitioner was issued with several notices on different dates, namely, 13.09.2005, 16.10.2006, 6.12.2006 and 13.2.2007 to file the balance sheet for the year 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, but the petitioner has not responded to anyone of the notices. Since one o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the petitioner cannot effect sale of any plant and machinery, they have effected the sale of plant and machinery. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed, however, before passing the impugned order, four notices were repeatedly issued to the petitioner on 13.09.2005, 16.10.2006, 6.12.2006 and 13.2.2007 to file the balance sheet for the year 2004- 2005 and 2005-2006 and to submit the renewed insurance policy of the fixed assets for the year 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. But the petitioner has not bothered to respond to anyone of the notices issued as mentioned above. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed confirming the proposal to cancel the deferral scheme and also the deferral agreement dated 03.04.2003 entered into by the Assist....