SHREE AMBIKA SUGARS LTD Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a sugar mill. It has availed deferral as per G.O. Ms. No. 989 (Industries) dated September 1, 1998 for a period of four years from March 1, 1989 to March 31, 2003. The capacity of the mill is 2500 tonnes of cane crushing per day. As per the G.O., newly established sugar mills are eligible for deferral of tax on last purchase of sugarcane payable for a period of four years and the ceiling limit for a year is Rs. 125 lakhs and Rs. 440 lakhs for four years. The petitioner availed Rs. 12,97,96,529 up to 2002 -03 with an excess availment of Rs. 8,57,96,529 than the ceiling amount of Rs. 440 lakhs. Notices were issued to the petitioner on February 24, 2003 and February 28, 2003 informing the petitioner to pay the excess availed amount. Notice dated February 28, 2003 is challenged in O.P. No. 303 of 2003 before the Tribunal. The petitioner also filed another O.P. No. 304 of 2003 praying to declare that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of purchase tax waiver in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 43 dated December 13, 1992, which was issued to boost the investment. The Tribunal granted stay of the notice on condition that the petitioner pays Rs. 1.50 crores on or before March 25, 2003 and Rs. 0.50 crores on or before March 31, 2003. The purchase tax from April, 2003 to January, 2004 was not paid by the petitioner and that amount which was not covered by the order of stay is demanded by the notice which is challenged in Writ Petition No. 25944 of 2005.

(2.) THE petitioner sent a reply dated February 26, 2003 in which it is stated that as per the G.O. Ms. No. 43 dated December 13, 1992, industries set up anywhere in Tamil Nadu get sales tax waiver for five years or deferral for ten years subject to a ceiling of 100 per cent of the fixed assets when the investment is between Rs. 50 crores and Rs. 100 crores. As the petitioner's investment in their new industrial unit was Rs. 65 crores and as the petitioner's industrial unit is set up at Kottur and Thuguli villages, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of G.O. Ms. No. 43. If that be so, there is no excess availment. The respondent rejected the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner about the applicability of the G.O. Ms. No. 43 to the petitioner's industry.

(3.) I have gone through the impugned order. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of G.O. Ms. No. 989 dated September 1, 1988 and G.O. Ms. No. 43 dated December 13, 1992 and if the benefits of the G.Os. are given to the petitioner, there would be no liability on the part of the petitioner to pay any amount, as demanded by the respondent. The claim of the petitioner that it is entitled to the benefit of G.O. Ms. No. 43 has been rejected by the respondent without assigning any reason. Any order, for that matter a rejection order has to be passed by giving reasons. Non -speaking order cannot stand the scrutiny of law. The same has to be set aside. The notices dated February 28, 2003 and August 9, 2005 challenged in Writ Petition Nos. 35644 and 25944 of 2005, which are consequent to the order of rejection have to be set aside and they are accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted back to the authority to reconsider the issue as to the applicability of the G.O. Ms. No. 43 dated December 13, 1992 to the petitioner's case, which is the subject -matter of Writ Petition No. 35375 of 2005 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Now that the period is already over it is open to the assessing officer to frame the assessment in accordance with the statutory provisions and also proceed further with the relevant assessment years. The writ petitions are ordered in the above terms.