TECHNO PACK PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is said to be a manufacturer of bottled mineral water. Final eligibility certificate fixing up eligibility for sales tax deferment was issued by the Industries Department on 30.11.1999. The quantum of eligibility for deferment is fixed at Rs. 1,11,07,260/- covering a period of 14 years. By the impugned order dated 24.5.2000, the 2nd respondent cancelled the final eligibility certificate with effect from 31.3.2000 without putting the petitioner on notice. The impugned proceedings were issued purportedly on the basis of a circular issued by the Commissioner of Industries. That Circular is apparently based on G.O.Ms. No. 63 Revenue (C.T.II) dated 3.2.2000 issued by the State Government under Section 9(1) and Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 5B of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act. A perusal of the said G.O. does not indicate prima facie that the incentives given to the eligible industries notified in G.O.Ms. No. 108, Industries and Commerce Department dated 20.5.1996 have been withdrawn and mineral water manufacturing units are made ineligible to get the benefit of sales tax deferment under G.O.Ms. No. 108. In any case, the decision not to sanction the sales tax incentives to the mineral water manufacturing units has been arrived at unilaterally without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons. As an arguable question arises as to whether the incentives granted by the State in implementation of their policy has been nullified by the issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 63 under the provisions of the Sales Tax Act, it is an eminently fit case where the petitioner should be heard before passing any adverse order. As the primary decision has been taken by the Commissioner of Industries (R -1), it is appropriate that the Commissioner should take the decision in the matter afresh after giving a show -cause notice to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons and take appropriate decision in the light of the representations made by them. The impugned order of the 2nd respondent is, therefore, quashed and the Commissioner shall deal with the matter afresh as indicated above. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.