(1.) GURURAJAN, J ia. dated 21. 8. 2003 filed by the petitioner for amendment is allowed. Petitioner is to amend the petition. Petitioner/company aggrieved by an order dated 24-9-2002, (Annexure-S) issued by the Commissioner for Industrial development and Director of Industries and Commerce, the decision taken at the 74th State Level Committee Meeting held on 2-8-2002 (Annexure-T), and the demand notice dated 12. 11. 2002 (Annexure-V), is before me seeking for a writ of certiorari in this petition. A writ of mandamus is sought for by the petitioner to respondents thereby directing the respondents to continue to grant the benefit in terms of the original certificate issued to the petitioner/ company. The facts in brief are as under;
(2.) NOTICE was issued and the respondents entered appearance. They have filed a detailed counter statement objecting to every one of the contentions urged by the petitioner. According to them, the amendment was necessitated in the light of the poligy of the government. The original certificate issued to the petitioner is by virtue of a mistake having been committed by the Department of industry and Commerce. It does not take away the alleged benefit conferred by the Industrial Policy. They also refer to the policy to contend that the petitioner is not entitled for any exemption. They further say the condition of additional capacity is essential for additional sales tax exemption. According to them, if there is no additional capacity, no concession can be granted in terms of the policy. Their further contention is that the non-collection of tax by the petitioner cannot be a ground to set at naught the original certificate. They justify their action. They have also filed annexure-R1 in support of their contention. During the pendency of the proceedings, the respondents have chosen to further amend the certificate on 24-I -2003. The said certificate is also filed at annexure-A. An application was filed seeking permission of the Court to amend the prayers. The same is allowed.
(3.) PETITIONER is represented by Sri. T. Andhyarujana, learned Sr. , Counsel. He elaborately argued before me to contend that injustice is meted out to his client. Learned Counsel took me through the factual position to contend that certificate issued on an earlier occasion has become final and binding on the department. He refers to me the operative portion of the Division Bench judgment in the petitioner's case to contend that liberty was reserved only to rectify the certificate in case of any factual error. According to learned counsel, there are no factual errors available on record and that therefore according to him the amended certificate runs counter to the direction issued by this Court. Petitioner also complains that the decision with regard to capacity is contrary to the policy of the state Government itself. Their further submission is that the amended certificate has been issued without referring to the certificate issued by the District Industries Centre to contend that investment was made to meet the power requirement and that therefore the question of additional capacity would not arise on the facts of this case. Limiting the concession on additional production is unsustainable according to petitioners. They further say that a further amendment has been carried out contrary to the direction of this. Court. He complains that the corrigendum of the Joint director dated 24-7-2002 is also in violation of the Division Bench order. According to petitioner, the exemption for investment in captive power is referable if there is additional capacity created out of investment. Captive Power plant has been installed to meet the power shortage and that cannot create any additional capacity. The general Manager on 8-8-1995 has stated that the petitioner is suffering from want of power. Therefore the Industrial Policy particularly, the condition (e) in Annexure-C of the Industrial Policy and Explanation II (iii) is not applicable.