Janardan Saw. Vs. the State of Jharkhand.

[d.k. jain; h.l. dattu, jj.] - tamil nadu general sales tax act, 1959 - section 17a -- the industry will be eligible for sales tax deferral only if in a financial year production exceeds the base production volume which is the highest annual production in the years prior to expansion. when the actual production in the industry in any financial year exceeds the base production volume, the industry would be eligible for deferral of sales tax for sales made in that year in excess of the base sales volume under tamil nadu general sales tax, which is the highest of the actual annual sales in the last 3 years prior to expansion. deferral of sales tax will only be on the increased volume of production/sales; the respondent was also informed that they could avail of deferral of sales tax after reaching the bsv/bpv for all the units whichever is earlier and then they could avail deferral for expansion unit at dalavoi only. referring to para 5.3 of the eligibility certificate, which provides that "the company is eligible for deferral of sales tax only on the increased volume of production/sale", learned counsel submitted that the slash in between the words production and sale shows that till both the bpv and bsv were achieved, the first respondent could not claim the benefit of deferral of sales tax scheme. it was contended that if bsv is achieved earlier and bpv is reached later in the financial year, the benefit of sales tax deferral should date back to the earlier date of achieving bsv and similarly if the bpv is achieved earlier and bsv is achieved later, it should date back to the earlier date of achieving bpv and only then the object of deferral scheme can be achieved. "5.3. the company is eligible for deferral of sales tax only on the increased volume of production/sale. the benchmark for availing the benefit of the sales tax deferral scheme having been fixed both with reference to the production as also to the sales, in our opinion, it is immaterial whether the unit.....1. the petitioner is in custody in connection with the case registered under sections 467/468/471/420/414/120(b)/34 ipc and section 21 of the mines minerals regulation and development act.2. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; he is the driver of the truck; the coal was loaded with valid papers; the allegation is that the coal was to be transported to kolkata, but it was intercepted and found on a different route; however, there are no allegations that the coal was stolen and the papers were forged; the petitioner has no concern with the coal; the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent; the petitioner is in custody since january 2011 without any cogent basis; the petitioner is a local permanent resident and there is no chance of his absconding.3. learned a.p.p opposed the petitioner's prayer for bail and submitted that the coal was to be transported to kolkata, but the route was diverted for illegal purpose.4. however, he has not disputed the other factual contentions submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner.5. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the c.j.m, jamtara in connection with jamtara (mihijam) p. s. case no. 2/11, corresponding to g. r. no. 6/11.