ORDER MRS. CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. - The petitioner herein set up a new unit for manufacture of catalytic converties and their parts for automobiles and motorcycles in the industrial estate at Maraimalai Nagar, Kancheepuram. As a newly established undertaking, the petitioner went in for the benefit of deferral of sales tax for a period of nine years. The third respondent granted eligibility certificate on December 7, 2000 for a period of nine years calculated from the date of commencement of commercial production, i.e., September 1, 1998. The deferral was for 100 per cent of the value of initial gross fixed assets, i.e., Rs. 106.63 lakhs. The repayment schedule was from September 1, 2007 to August 31, 2016. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner went in for expansion of the unit by additional investment. The IFST benefit was granted for this expanded unit by the third respondent herein, vide proceedings dated September 30, 2002. This was also for a period of nine years from the date, the unit commenced its commercial production, i.e., April 1, 2000 to March 31, 2009. The repayment was to start from April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2018. It is stated that the petitioner had started making the repayment. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that while granting the eligibility, particularly, with reference to the expanded unit on September 30, 2002, in paragraph 4.1, deferral was granted as regards the actual sales tax liability on account of general sales tax, additional sales tax, surcharge and additional surcharge liability. However, no reference was made to the Central sales tax liability for the purpose of inclusion in deferral of the sales tax. The petitioner made an application on March 3, 2003, drawing the attention of the SIPCOT to G.O.Ms. No. 376 dated October 27, 1992 and sought for amending the eligibility certificate to include the Central sales tax liability along with general sales tax liability. The petitioner stated therein that only during the audit of accounts of the company, the mistake in not including the Central sales tax liability in the eligibility certificate was noted. Hence, they sought for inclusion of the Central sales tax liability in the eligibility certificate. The petitioner stated therein that only during the audit of accounts of the company, the mistake in not including the Central sales tax liability in the eligibility certificate was noted. Hence, they sought for inclusion of the Central sales tax liability in the eligibility certificate. It is further seen that the petitioner wrote a letter to the Commercial Tax Department, bringing to their knowledge as to the pendency of the application to the SIPCOT for amendment of the eligibility certificate, to include the Central sales tax liability, particularly, with reference to the expanded unit and requested not to enforce any demand in the meantime. It is further seen that the representation by the petitioner as regards the availing of the deferral was rejected by the Commissioner in his proceedings dated January 31, 2003. There is no representation as far as the third respondent is concerned in spite of a direction given on the last occasion to ascertain the status of the reply given by SIPCOT as early as March 11, 2003. It is seen from the communication from the third respondent - SIPCOT dated March 11, 2003 to the petitioner herein that they had sought for clarification from the Government as regards the applicability of the notification under G.O.Ms. No. 104, Industries Department dated November 12, 2001, extending the sales tax incentives to the industries in pipeline. In the background of the facts, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the third respondent to amend the eligibility certificate issued by them dated September 30, 2002 by incorporating the sales tax liability as part of the deferral. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out to the Notification in G.O.Ms. No. 376 dated October 27, 1992, which was made in exercise of the power available under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with section 17A(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and G.O.Ms. No. 12, Commercial Taxes Department dated January 23, 2000 and G.O.Ms. No. 13, Commercial Taxes Department dated January 24, 2000, which were made in exercise of the authority under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, and submitted that since the grant of deferral is specific and relatable to the powers of the Government as per G.O.Ms. No. 12, Commercial Taxes Department dated January 23, 2000 and G.O.Ms. No. 13, Commercial Taxes Department dated January 24, 2000, which were made in exercise of the authority under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, and submitted that since the grant of deferral is specific and relatable to the powers of the Government as per G.O.Ms. No. 500 dated May 14, 1990 as well as the subsequent Government Orders issued thereon, the claim has to be considered in terms of the notification pertaining to the deferral issued under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act read with section 17A(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Hence, the SIPCOT is bound to extend the benefit of deferral by amending the eligibility certificate, taking note of the specific notifications issued under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act read with section 17A(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. It is seen from the Notification in G.O.Ms. No. 376 dated October 27, 1992 that in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with section 17A(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Government had deferred the payment of tax payable on sales made in the course of inter-State trade or commerce in respect of new industries as well as industries, which had gone for an expansion/diversification for a period of nine years from the date of commencement of production on or after May 14, 1990. Subsequent thereto, in view of the decision of the Government to phase out the scheme of deferral, G.O.Ms. No. 12, Commercial Taxes Department dated January 23, 2000 was issued. The said notification indicated the decision of the Government to discontinue the deferral scheme for any fresh grant with effect from January 23, 2000. As regards the existing commitment made in respect of industries which are already there enjoying the benefit, they should continue for the period of their eligibility. In respect of industries in pipeline, incentives shall be given subject to satisfying the conditions specified in the Government Order. Pursuant to the passing of G.O.Ms. No. 12, Commercial Taxes Department, dated January 23, 2000, G.O.Ms. In respect of industries in pipeline, incentives shall be given subject to satisfying the conditions specified in the Government Order. Pursuant to the passing of G.O.Ms. No. 12, Commercial Taxes Department, dated January 23, 2000, G.O.Ms. No. 26, Commercial Taxes Department, dated February 7, 2000 was made, whereby, the Government considered the cases of industries undertaking expansion/diversification, the notification pointed out that the benefit would be available to the existing industrial units undertaking expansion/diversification, provided, such units acquired necessary plant and machinery and equipment on or before January 23, 2000 and commenced commercial production on such expansion/diversification on or before January 22, 2000. By G.O.Ms. No. 104, Commercial Taxes (F1) Department, dated November 12, 2001, the Government once again considered the said issue in the light of the decision of this court dated June 8, 2001, particularly with reference to G.O.Ms. No. 26, Commercial Taxes Department, dated February 7, 2000, that the Government decided that the eligibility criteria for expansion/diversification would be on par with new units contained in G.O.Ms. No. 12, Commercial Taxes Department, dated January 23, 2000. Thus, G.O.Ms. No. 104, Commercial Taxes (F1) Department, dated November 12, 2001 directed the eligibility criteria for expansion/diversification units to be on par with new units as contained in G.O.Ms. No. 12, Commercial Taxes Department, dated January 23, 2000. It is seen that under G.O.Ms. No. 13, Commercial Taxes Department dated January 24, 2000, the Government dispensed with the Central sales tax deferral facilities to the industries which had commenced production after January 24, 2000. G.O.Ms. No. 16, Commercial Taxes (C1) Department dated March 1, 2002 ordered that G.O.Ms. No. 13, Commercial Taxes Department dated January 24, 2000 would apply to industries in pipeline as referred to in G.O.Ms. No. 12, Commercial Taxes Department dated January 23, 2000. Since there was no specific mention as to whether the Government Order would apply to industries in pipeline relating to expansion/diversification for which the Government had issued orders, the third respondent intimated the petitioner that they were awaiting reply from the Government. It is further seen that Notification in G.O.Ms. No. 12, Commercial Taxes Department dated January 23, 2000. Since there was no specific mention as to whether the Government Order would apply to industries in pipeline relating to expansion/diversification for which the Government had issued orders, the third respondent intimated the petitioner that they were awaiting reply from the Government. It is further seen that Notification in G.O.Ms. No. 16, Commercial Taxes (C1) Department dated March 1, 2002 issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act was introduced to add a proviso to the notification dated December 9, 1992; that the notification issued under section 8(5)(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act would not apply to industries in pipeline referred to in G.O.Ms. No. 12, Commercial Taxes Department dated January 23, 2000. The explanatory note to the notification stated that G.O.Ms. No. 16, Commercial Taxes (C1) Department, dated March 1, 2002 was introduced in view of the decision of the Government to phase out the sales tax deferral as stated so in G.O.Ms. No. 12, Commercial Taxes Department, dated January 23, 2000. Under G.O.Ms. No. 376 dated October 27, 1992, the Government issued a notification under section 8(5)(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act granting exemption on tax payable by an industry set up in Tamil Nadu with an investment of not less than Rs. 50 crores, but below Rs. 100 crores for a period of five years from the date of commencement of production. The tax exemption was up to a ceiling of 100 per cent of the value of fixed assets. The notification contained the following conditions, namely, the industry shall produce the eligibility certificate issued by SIPCOT to the Territorial Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) and shall not have availed of deferment of tax under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act read with section 17A(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Thus, industries, which had not availed of the deferral of sales tax in terms of section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act read with section 17A(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act would qualify for exemption from payment of tax in terms of the notification under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Subsequent to this Government order dated October 27, 1992, G.O.Ms. Subsequent to this Government order dated October 27, 1992, G.O.Ms. No. 13, Commercial Taxes Department, dated January 24, 2000 was issued under section 8(5)(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act amending the notification dated December 9, 1992, by adding a proviso that the exemption from payment of sales tax would not be applicable to industries commencing production on or after January 24, 2000. A reading of the above notifications thus shows that while on one hand in terms of the Government notifications granting deferral/waiver of sales tax, notifications are issued under the specific provision of section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act read with section 17A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, irrespective of the availability of such benefit, solely based on the authority available under the statute, notifications were issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act granting exemption/reduction from payment of Central sales tax under stated specific conditions applicable to dealers/or to specific dealers; on the other hand, the notification issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act has no reference or relevance to the waiver/deferral of sales tax granted in terms of specific Government orders, followed by notifications issued under section 17A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and notifications issued under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act read with section 17A(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. It is relevant to note that notifications issued under the specific provision of section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act read with section 17A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act in terms of the policy of the Government on deferral as given under G.O.Ms. No. 500 dated May 14, 1990 and other various Government Orders and the notifications issued under the power conferred on the State by reason of specific provision under the Tax Act in terms of section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, travel on different fields. With the passing of G.O.Ms. No. 12, Commercial Taxes Department, dated January 23, 2000, the Government had decided to phase out the grant of deferral of sales tax. Necessary modifications were also brought in to the notifications issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act. With the passing of G.O.Ms. No. 12, Commercial Taxes Department, dated January 23, 2000, the Government had decided to phase out the grant of deferral of sales tax. Necessary modifications were also brought in to the notifications issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Although the grant of the exemption/concession is not, in any manner, dependent on the notifications issued otherwise under general power of the Government, yet, taking note of the general policy not to grant/restrict the grant of deferral/waiver of sales tax, corresponding notifications were issued in exercise of power under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Thus, wherever an industry comes for an eligibility to be considered in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 500, Industries (MIG - II), Department, dated May 14, 1990 and the subsequent notifications bringing modification/amendment thereto, the notifications issued under section 17A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and those issued under section 9(2) read with section 17A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act will be the governing notifications in the matter of considering the grant of deferral of sales tax. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that as the deferral on the Central sales tax liability to new industries as well as industries which had gone for an expansion/diversification had the benefit of deferral of sales tax including the Central sales tax liability falling for consideration under specific notifications issued under the provisions of the Central sales tax, it stands to reason that for the expanded unit of the petitioner - company, in the face of G.O.Ms. No. 376 dated October 27, 1992, the question of resorting to any clarification as to the applicability of G.O.Ms. No. 16, Commercial Taxes (C1) Department dated March 1, 2002, or for that matter, even G.O.Ms. No. 104, Industries Department dated November 12, 2001, does not arise in this case. I do not agree with the said submission. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, when G.O.Ms. No. 104, Industries Department dated November 12, 2001 indicates the decision of the Government to treat the units going for expansion/diversification on par with new units in the matter of grant of eligibility, the question of reading G.O.Ms. I do not agree with the said submission. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, when G.O.Ms. No. 104, Industries Department dated November 12, 2001 indicates the decision of the Government to treat the units going for expansion/diversification on par with new units in the matter of grant of eligibility, the question of reading G.O.Ms. No. 16, Commercial Taxes (C1) Department, dated March 1, 2002 issued under specific provision of section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act has no relevance at all in considering the claim of the petitioner. Hence, going by G.O.Ms. No. 104, Industries Department dated November 12, 2001, read along with G.O.Ms. No. 376 dated October 27, 1992, I have no hesitation in granting the prayer to the petitioner, thereby directing the third respondent to amend the eligibility certificate incorporating the benefit of G.O.Ms. No. 376 dated October 27, 1992 and granting the deferral in respect of Central sales tax liability also within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In W.P. No. 26437 of 2004, the petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to restore the Central sales tax of Rs. 48,94,636 remitted under letter dated October 27, 2003 for the assessment year 2002-03 and further sums so recovered during the deferral period from July 7, 2003 to March 31, 2004 and from May 26, 2004 for the assessment year 2004-05 while rescheduling the repayment as per G.O.Ms. No. 500 dated May 14, 1990 and such other orders of the Government of Tamil Nadu granting deferral of Central sales tax. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the recovery proceedings issued by the first respondent, the petitioner had remitted the sum of Rs. 48,94,636 for the period from September, 2002 to March, 2003 by way of Central sales tax liability. As the Commissioner had rejected the request of the petitioner, which is contrary to the Government Orders referred to above, the petitioner seeks an order for restoring the said sum for the abovesaid period and for rescheduling the payment. 48,94,636 for the period from September, 2002 to March, 2003 by way of Central sales tax liability. As the Commissioner had rejected the request of the petitioner, which is contrary to the Government Orders referred to above, the petitioner seeks an order for restoring the said sum for the abovesaid period and for rescheduling the payment. Having regard to the orders passed above directing the third respondent to amend the eligibility certificate, the tax recovered as regards the liability in the Central sales tax relevant to the abovesaid period for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2004-05 shall be taken note of while rescheduling the repayment. In the light of the orders passed in W.P. No. 26436 of 2004, the prayer in W.P. No. 26437 of 2004 also stands granted. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Connected W.P.M.P. No. 32192 of 2004 is closed.