ORDER P. D. DINAKARAN, J. - By notice dated July 31, 2002 the second respondent pointing out certain violations thereunder, proposed to recover a sum of Rs. 217 lakhs and required the petitioner to repay the said deferral amount of Rs. 217 lakhs already availed immediately along with interest under section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), even though there was no dispute as to the eligibility of the petitioner to avail the deferral of sales tax as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 500 Industries (M.I.G. - II) dated May 14, 1990 read with the eligibility certificate No. 11 dated February 18, 1991 issued by the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (SIPCOT), and the statutory notification issued by the Government in that regard by G.O.P. No. 92, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated February 22, 1991 under section 17 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said demand notice, the petitioner moved the Special Tribunal in O.P. No. 805 of 2002 seeking to quash the said notice dated July 31, 2002 pointing out that the benefit of deferral of sales tax conferred under G.O.Ms. No. 500 Industries (M.I.G. - II) dated May 14, 1990 read with the eligibility certificate No. 11 dated February 18, 1991 and the statutory notification issued by the Government in that regard by G.O.P. No. 92, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated February 22, 1991 under section 17 of the Act, is denied to the petitioner on the ground that they are not entitled for deferral for all products manufactured by their unit, as according to the respondents, in the preamble portion of the eligibility certificate, it refers only the manufacture of "water proofing membrane" in the petitioner unit, but not "primer", which is also concededly a product manufactured by the petitioner unit and secondly, the denial of the said benefits is in view of the change of the name of the petitioner from "Integrated Water Proofings Limited" to its abbreviated form "I.W.L. India Limited.", which also got notified to the Registrar of Companies and changed in the relevant records, both in the Registrar of Companies as well as the statutory authorities. The Tribunal, however, rejected the petitioner's claim and dismissed the original petition. The Tribunal, however, rejected the petitioner's claim and dismissed the original petition. Hence the above writ petition with a prayer for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the third respondent in O.P. No. 805 of 2002 dated October 30, 2002 along with the proceedings of the second respondent herein in Rc. 1811 of 2002 dated July 31, 2002 and quash the proceedings of the third respondent, while directing the first and second respondents herein to forbear from proceeding further pursuant to the proceedings of the second respondent herein in Rc. 1811 of 2002 dated July 31, 2002 or in any manner interfering with the business of the petitioners herein pursuant thereto. Mr. Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, inviting our attention to the G.O.Ms. No. 500 Industries (M.I.G. - II) dated May 14, 1990 as well as the eligibility certificate and the statutory notification issued by the Government in that regard by G.O.P. No. 92, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated February 22, 1991 under section 17 of the Act, contends that the eligibility certificate as well as the notification issued under section 17 does not restrict the benefit of the deferral of the sales tax only with regard to the manufacture of "water proofing membrane" but confer the said benefit to all the products that are manufactured by the petitioner unit and in this regard, reference was made to clause 4(a) of the eligibility certificate, which reads thus : "4. The actual amount deferred shall however, be the least of the amounts mentioned in (a); (b) and (c) below : (a) the sum of, (i) Sales tax, surcharge and additional surcharge liability to Government for the period from August 1, 1990 to July 31, 1999 under the provisions of the TNGST Act, 1959 on the sales of finished goods manufactured by the unit at Alamathi Village, Ponneri taluk, Chingleput District. (ii) Net tax paid (less set-off admissible, if any) under the provisions of the TNGST Act, 1959, on the purchase of raw material. (ii) Net tax paid (less set-off admissible, if any) under the provisions of the TNGST Act, 1959, on the purchase of raw material. (iii) Central sales tax and surcharge on Central sales tax liability to Government under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax (CST) Act, 1956 on the sales of finished goods manufactured by the unit in Tamil Nadu for the period as in (i) above." The agreement between the commercial taxes authorities and the petitioner dated January 27, 1992 and the notifications issued by the Government in that regard by G.O.P. No. 92, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated February 22, 1991 under section 17 of the Act, particularly, Notification - II, read thus : "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 17-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1959), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby defers the payment of tax payable, - (a) by the new industries in the seventy-five backward taluks annexed to this notification, on the sale of the products manufactured by these units for a period of nine years from the date of commencement of production on or after the 14th May, 1990 up to a ceiling of total investment made in fixed assets, after deducting the quantum of tax under Central sales tax for the same period subject to the condition that these units produce to the assessing authority the eligibility certificates issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre in the case of small-scale industries and by the SIPCOT in the case of medium and major industries subject to the condition that the tax so deferred shall be paid after the completion of deferral period along with the tax assessed for that year, i.e., the tax deferred tax assessed for that year; the tax deferred for the second year shall be paid in the eleventh year along with the tax assessed for that year and so on, (b) by the existing industries in the seventy-five backward taluks annexed to this tax notification on the sale of the products manufactured by the capacity created by the expansion/diversification only for a period of nine years from the date of commencement of production or after the 14th May, 1990 upto a ceiling of 60 per cent of additional investment made in fixed assets, after deducting the quantum of tax under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act 74 of 1956), for the same period, subject to the condition that these units produce to the assessing authority, the eligibility certificate issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre in the case of small-scale industries and subject to the conditions that the tax so deferred shall be paid after the completion of the tax assessed in the 10th year, the tax deferred for the second year shall be paid along with the tax assessed in the 11th year and so on, and that such deferral of sales tax shall be eligible for only one expansion or diversification of the existing unit, it carried out in the same taluk where the original project is located." Clause (1) of the agreement between the Department of Sales Tax and the petitioner dated January 27, 1992 reads thus : "1. The tax/surcharge/additional surcharge/additional tax/Central sales tax to be deferred shall relate to the tax on the sale of the products manufactured by the new unit/expansion - diversification unit of the existing industries in Tamil Nadu." Similarly, the fact that even though the petitioner initially registered the Company in the name of "Tvl. Integrated Water Proofing Limited", they subsequently got their name amended in an abbreviated form, viz., "IWL India Limited", and got amended in the records of the Registrar of Companies as well as the statutory authorities, is also brought to our notice. Mr. Ayyasamy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Department is not in a position to deny the above factual contention based on the relevant clauses of the agreement, notification, proceedings of Registrar of Companies and the statutory authorities. In that view of the matter, we do not find any justification in refusing to give the deferral benefits to the petitioner. Therefore, we are inclined to quash the impugned demand notice dated July 31, 2002 and set aside the order dated October 30, 2002 passed by the Tribunal in O.P. No. 805 of 2002 and consequently the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs.