IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 29673 of 1995 Between: Sri Ram Wood Products Pct. Ltd., rep. by Managing Director Sri Chandraprakash Rungta 31-34-145/1, Banagaramma Metta, Visakhapatnam-4 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary Dept. of Industries & Commerce Secretariat, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner of Industries, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad 3 The General Manager District Industries Centre, Visakhapatnam 4 The Commercial Tax Officer Daba Gardens Circle, Visakhapatnam 5 The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Dept., Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to To issue an Order, direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the petitioner is entitled to balance sales tax subsidy of Rs.6.94 lakhs in terms of G.O.Ms.No.498, dt: 16-10-1989 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.SARVESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE The Court made the following : HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.No.29673 of 1995 (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare that the petitioner is entitled to balance sales tax subsidy of Rs.6.94 lakhs in terms of G.O.Ms.No.498 dated 16.10.1989. The case of the petitioner is that it is a registered small scale industry and they have set up their unit under the name and style of Sri Rama Wood Products Pvt. Ltd. in October, 1989. It had obtained necessary registration and commenced its production from March, 1991 onwards. The District Industries Centre, Visakhapatnam also issued certificate for getting subsidy in accordance with G.O.ms.No.498 dated 16.10.1989 and the petitioner was granted hundred percent sales tax subsidy by the 2nd respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that though it is entitled for grant of subsidy for the investment made by it for an amount of Rs.25.74 lakhs, as recommended by the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent granted sales tax subsidy for Rs.18.80 lakhs only vide proceedings dated 25.6.1992. Hence this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had made a representation along with all the bills for the investment incurred by it for Rs.25.74 lakhs and submitted that as per the clause Sub-Clause (ii) of Clause 6.2 of New Package of Incentives – Liberalized State Incentives Scheme 1989 (for short ‘the Scheme’), small scale industries are exempted from payment of sales tax for a period of five years from the date of commercial production limited to 100% of fixed capital investment or Rs.35.00 lakhs whichever is less. Learned counsel further argued that there is no dispute with regard to commencement of production by the unit, but it is only with regard to the balance subsidy of Rs.6.94 lakhs, as the 3rd respondent has recommended for hundred percent subsidy on the amount of Rs.25.74 lakhs. The learned Government Pleader for Industries has argued that the 2nd respondent had allowed sales subsidy up to Rs.18.80 lakhs only as the petitioner has not satisfied the with regard to the investment of the balance amount. Having perused the material available on record and also the Clause 6.2(ii) of the Scheme, whereunder small scale industries are exempted form payment of sales tax for a period of give years from the date of commercial production limited 100% of fixed capital investment or Rs.35.00 lakhs whichever is less and as the case of the petitioner is that it has made investment of Rs.25.74 lakhs, which is a dispute of fact, we are of the opinion that the petitioner’s case can be considered by the 2nd respondent for grant of subsidy for an amount of Rs.25.74 lakhs, which according to the petitioner is the investment made by it, if it produces all the relevant bills in proof of the said investment. The petitioner is also permitted to make a fresh representation enclosing all the relevant bills in proof of investment made by it to the satisfaction of the 2nd respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such representation being made, the 2nd respondent shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 26-6-2008 ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J