SUNIL KUMAR TAPARIA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of W. P. (C) No. 2603 of 2011, W. P. (C) No. 4133 of 2011 and W. P. (C) No. 2153 of 2010 as all the three petitions have been filed by the same petitioner on the same issue. The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated May 2, 2009 passed by the Director of Industries and Commerce, Assam, followed by order dated February 14, 2010 passed by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam under the provisions of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and consequential assessment order. Case of the petitioner is that he is engaged in the business of manufacturing lubricating and fuel oil out of used oil. As per the Industrial Policy of 2003, sales tax exemption for seven years was permissible to eligible units. The petitioner, claiming to be eligible, applied for the said benefit, which was considered in accordance with the industrial policy and the Assam Industries (Tax Exemption for Pipeline Units) Order, 2005. Eligibility certificate dated July 19, 2007 was issued in his favour granting benefit from March 20, 2006 to March 19, 2013. Accordingly, certificate of entitlement was also issued to the petitioner. However, on August 29, 2008, the Director of Industries and Commerce, Assam withdrew the sales tax exemption which was challenged vide W. P. (C) No. 4406 of 2008. The writ petition was allowed on February 6, 2009 on the ground that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity in the matter. Thereafter, order dated May 2, 2009 was passed on the ground that the activity of the petitioner could not be termed as manufacturing, which was a condition for the grant of concession. The petitioner challenged the order dated May 2, 2009 and also order dated February 14, 2011 passed by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam. The petitioner has also challenged consequential assessment order.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the process carried out by him amounts to manufacturing and, accordingly, entitlement and eligibility certificate having been issued, the same could not be withdrawn merely by change of opinion already formed in absence of any misstatement or suppression on the part of the petitioner.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.