V.Rengasamy, J. (Vice -Chairman) - (1.) PETITION on being called today upon hearing both sides the Tribunal ordered as follows : The original petition is to set aside the order of the first respondent dated May 19, 1999 cancelling the benefit of deferral and also calling upon the petitioner to pay the sales tax deferral availed, in one lumpsum, along with interest, The petitioner started the industry for manufacturing of poly bags by availing the deferral scheme. Admittedly in a particular period, the petitioner, was doing only the job -work for third parties and stopped the manufacture of poly sacks. This was found out in the inspection by the enforcement wing officials and thereafter, the impugned notice was issued cancelling the deferral scheme as the petitioner has violated the condition No. VII(a) of eligibility certificate. It is specifically alleged that the petitioner was doing only the works contract for others, though they were enjoying the deferral scheme, and as the works contract was carried out for more than six months, it is violation of Clause VII(a) which reads that the stopping of normal production for a period exceeding six months during any year from the date of commencement of production during the period covered under the scheme is violation. The assessee in the affidavit has not denied the job -work or otherwise the works contract for others. But the learned counsel K. Jayachandran contends that the scheme itself was only to give jobs in backward areas and the petitioner was providing jobs to unemployed persons though they were doing the job -works and this nature of activity was not against the policy of the Government and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. The deferral benefit was given to the petitioner only for the production of the poly sacks by the petitioner. The eligibility certificate also was issued only for the production of the poly sacks. But the petitioner admittedly, for more than six months, did not carry on the production but was doing works contract for others. Therefore, certainly, it will amount to violation of Clause VII(a) of the eligibility certificate compelling the authorities to issue the impugned order, cancelling the deferral benefit. I do not find any error in the order for interference. The learned counsel K. Jayachandran referred to G.O. Ms. No. 500, which according to him, is the revised Government Order superseding all the earlier Government Orders. But the Government Order relied upon by the learned counsel does not supersede the condition of stoppage of production continuously for six months. Therefore, the contention that the G.O. Ms. No. 500, dated May 14, 1990 supersedes the condition No. VII(a) is unacceptable. I find no merit in this original petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. The original order, if any shall be returned to the petitioner.
(2.) AND this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 17th day of April, 2000.;