ULTRA TECH CEMENT LIMITED Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT STATE OF TAMIL NADU COMMERCIAL TAXES AND RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Arokanam Village, Vellore District and consequently, direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.12.2006 and 8.2.2007 and pass orders on the continuance of the waiver scheme of the deed of the agreement, dated 12.7.2006 entered into between the Government of Tamil Nadu and the petitioner and for further orders.

(2.) THE petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of Cement, carrying on its manufacturing activities in 10 plants located in various parts of the country, including manufacturing unit at Arakonam Village, Vellore District. THE said unit was established, pursuant to the package of incentives given by the State vide G.O. Ms. No. 500, Industries (MIG-II) Department, dated 14.5.1990, whereby, the State directed inter alia that the new industries set up in 30 Most Backward Taluks notified in the annexure to the said order and also in three Industrial Complexes of SIPCOT at Pudukottai, Cuddalore and Manamadurai, shall be eligible for full waiver of Sales Tax dues for a period of five years upto a ceiling of total investment made in the fixed asset and G.O. Ms. No. 43, Industries (MIG-II) Department, dated 13.11.1992, directing the package of incentives for large industries, whereby, an industry set up anywhere in the state having an investment of Rs. 100 Crores and below Rs. 200 Crores will be eligible for a sales tax waiver of 6 years or deferral for 12 years subject to a ceiling of 100% of the value of fixed assets.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid provision, the waiver scheme extended to the petitioner as per the deed of agreement dated 12.7.2006, automatically stood modified as deferral scheme. Since the VAT Act provided that the Government on an application from the Industrial Unit already availing remission of tax to pass orders for continuance of such remission for the unexpired portion or till the balance of amount of tax is remitted (whichever is earlier), the petitioner made an application to the respondents as early as on 29.12.2006, even before the Act was notified, pointing out the legal position and explained the petitioners predicament arising out of switching over from waiver to deferral scheme under the new Act and sought clarification regarding implementation of the scheme. Pending clarification, the petitioner indicated that he would show the VAT separately in its invoices with effect from 1.1.2007 in order to enable its dealers to claim input tax credit. According to the petitioner, the said recourse was in full compliance with Section 33 of the VAT Act.