S.N. Jha and Aftab Alam, JJ.
1. This writ application has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to allow the benefits of the Sales Tax Deferment Scheme contained in the Industrial Policy Resolution of the State Government dated 6th September, 1989.
2. As per the said resolution, the new Industrial Units starting commercial production on 1st April, 1989 and thereafter are eligible to defer payment of sales tax to the extent of 90 per cent of the fixed capital investments. The petitioner has already been allowed the benefits of such deferment to the extent of Rs. 6,62,894.09 Paise calculated on the basis of the fixed capital investment as on the date of production. According to the petitioner, it is entitled to the similar benefits with respect to the subsequent capital investments as well.
3. In course of hearing of the case, the petitioner filed an affidavit, described as Reply to the respondents' counter-affidavit, in which it has been stated that although the petitioner was entitled to defer payment of sales tax to the tune of Rs. 15,38, 491 / - on the basis of the capital investments made by it up to 31st March, 1992, it has already repaid on its own Rs. 8,75,597.24 Paise, which is the subject-matter of the claim in the present writ petition, by 31st March, 1997, and has further paid out of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 6,62,894.09 Paise sanctioned by the District-Level Committee, as aforesaid, Rs. 3,66,353.00. The sum of Rs. 2,59,603.60 Paise only remains outstanding to be paid out of the amounts sanctioned by the District-Level Committee.
4. Mr. Pawan Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of the Bihar Sales Tax Supplementary (Deferment of Tax) Rules, 1990, the petitioner is required to pay the amount sanctioned by the District-Level Committee in five equal instalments within ten years. Since the petitioner's Unit commenced commercial production from 10th July, 1990, it was required to pay the instalments by 10th July, 2000. Counsel stated that the payment of Rs. 3,66,353.00 as aforesaid, which comes to little less than 3/5th of the amount sanctioned by the District-Level Committee, thus, should be accepted as substantial compliance of the Rules. The petitioner, in the circumstances, should be permitted to pay the remaining balance amount in two instalments by 31st March, 1999 and 31st March, 2000. Counsel for the State has no objection if the petitioner is permitted to repay the balance amount by 31st March, 1999 and 31st March, 2000.
5. In the circumstances, we permit the petitioner to repay the balance or the amount sanctioned by the District-Level Committee in two equal instalments by 31st March, 1999 and 31st March, 2000 and direct the respondents-authorities to accept the payments as due compliance of the Rules. Since the amount of sales tax payable on the fixed capital investments about which there was dispute, has already been paid in the manner stated above but beyond the stipulated periods which might be on account of the pendency of the claim in the present writ application, we further direct the respondents not to take coercive action against the petitioner for such delayed payment.
6. This writ application, thus, stands disposed of.