TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 175
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and contentions put forth by either side are of identical nature. Therefore, we proceed to decide these nine cases by this Common Order. 3. The assessment year involved in these nine cases for ready reference is reflected in the table below. Sl.No. TREVC No. Assessment Year 01. 258 of 2009 1997-1998 (CST) 02. 259 of 2009 1997-1998 (CST) 03. 260 of 2009 1998-1999 (CST) 04. 271 of 2009 1999-2000 (APGST) 05. 274 of 2009 1999-2000 (CST) 06. 276 of 2009 1997-1998 (APGST) 07. 278 of 2009 2000-2001 (CST) 08. 54 of 2010 1996-1997 (CST) 09. 130 of 2010 2001-2002 (APGST) 4. The facts of the case are that the respondent Company is in the business of re-filling Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPGs) in small cylinders. The Government of Andhra Pradesh (unified) had issued G.O. Ms. No. 117, dated 07.03.1993, modifying the earlier G.O. Ms. No. 498 allowing sales tax deferment / tax holiday on products manufactured in new industrial units. Another G.O. was issued i.e. G.O. Ms. No. 108, dated 25.08.1996, whereby sales tax exemption as also the investment subsidy to new industrial units located in the State o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate Deputy Commissioner which stands reversed by the learned Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal leading to filing of the present batch of Tax Revision Cases by the petitioner - State. 6. The STAT was of the view that since admittedly the respondent Company had a final eligibility certificate so far as deferment of sales tax incentive in their favour and which stood cancelled w.e.f. 24.11.2003 only, and for the period during which the final eligibility certificate was in vogue, the respondent Company cannot be saddled with the liability of payment of sales tax for the period during which it availed the benefit of tax deferment in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 108 and accordingly allowed the appeals of the respondent. However, according to the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, once when the final eligibility certificate having been cancelled by the State, the respondent Company is held to be not entitled for tax deferment incentive and neither would the respondent Company be entitled for any tax deferment during the intervening period. 7. It was the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax that once when it has been held by the unified Andhra Pradesh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., where the incentives in the form of permitting the petitioners to collect the tax and appropriate the same for themselves without remitting it to the Government, things would have been different. With the finding that they were not entitled for such benefit, there would not have be any difficulty in making the petitioners to shell down what they have collected towards tax. However, in the scheme under consideration, the Petitioners other beneficiaries, who are extended the incentives, were prohibited from collecting the tax. Clause (vi) of the letter of final eligibility reads as under: "Clause (vi): The SSI units are not entitled to collect sales tax from the consumers and further they would be liable to remit the sales tax collected to the Government in case they collect sales tax during the availment period of sales tax exemption." Therefore, once the Petitioners were not only disabled, but in fact, were prohibited from collecting tax, it is impermissible to compel them to pay the tax, which they did not collect. This observation of ours is not without judicial authority. In Pawan Alloys & Castings Put Ltd Vs. UPSEB reported in 1997 (7) SCC 251, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was cancelled only from 24.11.2003 and beyond 24.11.2003 there is no dispute for the subsequent period that the respondent Company has committed any default. From the year 1993 till 2003, the respondent Company had a final eligibility certificate with it. Further, the respondent Company also in view of the final eligibility certificate having been issued had not collected sales tax from its customers. 11. A similar issue came up before the unified Andhra Pradesh High Court in a batch of cases i.e. TREVC Nos. 10, 13 and 14 of 2010, decided on 06.01.2012, wherein the Division Bench has held as under: "The respondent is a dealer engaged in the business of refilling Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG). In their returns for the assessment year 1997-1998, they claimed the benefit of tax deferment allowed by the Government vide G.O. Ms. No. 108, dated 25.08.1996. It was negatived by the Commercial Tax Officer. Aggrieved, the dealer appealed to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner who by order dated 26.03.2003 rejected the plea. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT), however, allowed and remanded the matter observing that the final eligibility certificate issued to the dealer was rend....