Tvl.Dhanam Plastics Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
tamil nadu general sales tax act -- the commercial production was started by the petitioner, on 01.06.1996. on the basis of the eligibility certificate issued by the respondent no.3, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the state government to avail a benefit of deferral payment of sale taxes. the petitioner having not paid the amount in terms of the agreement executed by the petitioner with the state government, the impugned order was passed recalling the amount due in terms of the agreement executed by the petitioner.it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the 3rd respondent was bound under the scheme, to have issued the correct eligibility certificate, which it failed to issue, in-spite of demand.1. the petitioner has approached this court with a prayer, for issuance of a writ, in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the order passed by the assistant commissioner,(ct), thanjavur, with consequential relief for a writ, in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent no.3, to amend the eligibility certificate issued to the petitioner. 2.the petitioner availed a term loan of rs.15.33 lakhs [rupees fifteen lakhs and thirty three thousand only] from the tamil nadu industrial investment corporation ltd., thanjavur, on 1.6.1995. the commercial production was started by the petitioner, on 01.06.1996. 3.the state government framed a scheme for deferral payment of sale tax, stipulating that a registered dealer, under the tamil nadu general sales tax act, will be entitled to deferral payment to the extent of investment made for the period of nine years, and to be repaid without interest on the expiry of the period of nine years. 4.on the basis of the eligibility certificate issued by the respondent no.3, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the state government to avail a benefit of deferral payment of sale taxes. in the certificate issued by the respondent no.3, instead of date of commercial production, the date of disbursement of loan was shown and accordingly, in the agreement executed between the parties, the period of nine years was counted from the date of disbursement of the loan and not from the date of commencement of commercial production. 5.the petitioner having not paid the amount in terms of the agreement executed by the petitioner with the state government, the impugned order was passed recalling the amount due in terms of the agreement executed by the petitioner. 6.the learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order, on the ground that it cannot be sustained in law, being based on the wrong eligibility certificate. 7.it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the 3rd respondent was bound under the scheme, to have issued the correct eligibility certificate, which it failed to issue, in-spite of demand. 8.on the admitted fact that the correct certificate has not been issued by the 3rd respondent, no fault can be found in the impugned order, as admittedly, the petitioner is a was defaulter, in terms of agreement executed, by it with the state government. 9.however, in view of the fact, that it is not disputed that the eligibility certificate does not give the correct date of eligibility, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondent no.3 to take a decision on the representation made by the petitioner, for correction of eligibility certificate, further liberty is also granted to the petitioner, that in case, corrected certificate is issued, then it can seek amendment of the agreement, and pray for review of the impugned order. 10.it is made clear that in case the eligibility certificate is not corrected, it shall be open to the 1st respondent to enforce, the impugned order against the petitioner. 11.consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. no costs.