ORDER : Heard Mrs.Lakshmi Sriram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Ramesh Venkatachalapathy, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader, for the respondents 2 and 3. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the first respondent rejecting the request made by the petitioner dated 14.05.2003, by which, they requested the first respondent to amend the eligibility certificate granted by changing the base sales volume. 3. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was granted with two eligibility certificates and one for a period of five years i.e. from 01.08.1999 to 31.03.2003 and the other was for a period of nine years from 01.09.1995 to 31.08.2004. So far as the certificate which was issued for a period of nine years, there is no dispute and we are concerned only with the certificate which was valid upto 31.03.2003 which was granted for a period of five years commencing from 01.08.1999. 4. Though elaborate submissions were made by the learned counsel for the parties and reference was made to the various documents in the typed set of papers, the dispute in this case lies in a very narrow campus as to whether the first respondent was justified in rejecting the petitioner's request dated 14.05.2003 for amending the eligibility certificate by altering the base sales volume. The impugned order is a three line order and the only reason assigned for rejection of the petitioner's request is on the ground that the eligibility certificate has expired on 31.03.2003. In my view, the reason assigned by the first respondent is incorrect and erroneous and I substantiate this conclusion by the following reasons: The petitioner was granted an eligibility certificate for a period of five years from 01.08.1999 to 31.03.2003, by which the petitioner was eligible for deferral of sales tax not exceeding Rs.42.01 lakhs, interest free for the said five years period. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has enjoyed the benefit of deferral and whileso, the second respondent / assessing officer during 2003 took up for consideration the base sales volume in respect of the sales of cotton yarn of the petitioner and stated that it works out to Rs.12,40,78,000/- and the relevant tax due at 4% amounts to Rs.49,63,120/-. Therefore, the second respondent stated that the petitioner can avail IFST/Deferral for expansion only after crossing the base sales volume of Rs.12,40,78,000/-. It was pointed out that the object of providing a clause for base production volume / base sales volume is only to protect the past revenue and as per the revenue protection clause, the dealer has to pay taxes upto the base sales volume/base production volume whichever is higher as determined in the eligibility certificate and only the incremental tax due if any alone can be availed under the expansion scheme. The petitioner's reply dated 13.06.2002 was considered with reference to the notice issued by the second respondent dated 31.05.2002 and the contention of the petitioner that IFST expansion has been granted only for new unit was held to be wrong. Accordingly, the second respondent held that the petitioner has wrongly availed the benefit of deferral scheme to the tune of Rs.127.79 lakhs in contravention of the eligibility certificate issued by the first respondent and the agreement made with the department. Therefore, the second respondent directed the petitioner to pay the irregularly availed deferral amount along with interest under Section 24(3). After the receipt of the said order issued by the second respondent, it appears that the petitioner did not challenge the same, but chose to approach the first respondent by way of representation dated 14.05.2003 and after setting out the facts, the petitioner has pointed out as follows: “However the sales details given for these 2 years were in respect of total turnover of the petitioner company which included not only taxable sales but also consignment sales and export sales. Apart from this income from other sources were also included in the total sales given for 93-94 and 94-95 at Rs.723.71 lakhs and Rs.1240.78 lakhs. Strictly speaking excluding the income from other sources and sales of other items, sales of cotton taxable under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act would come to Rs.659.02 lakhs for the assessment year 93-94 and Rs.10,59,68,728 for the year 94-95. The consignment sales and the merchant export which are exempted under the Tax Act come to Rs.48,90,051 and Rs.1,23,12,834. However, the eligibility certificate issued recorded the total income as total sales. With the result the base year sales and the tax payment thereon resulted in an artificial turnover and the tax liability much against the actual state of affairs. The consignment sales and the merchant export which are exempted under the Tax Act come to Rs.48,90,051 and Rs.1,23,12,834. However, the eligibility certificate issued recorded the total income as total sales. With the result the base year sales and the tax payment thereon resulted in an artificial turnover and the tax liability much against the actual state of affairs. However, this mistake went unnoticed at the time of making application for eligibility which inadvertently got carried on the eligibility certificate and the subsequent agreement entered into thereon fixing the base level sales at Rs.723.71 lakhs and Rs.1240.78 lakhs.” 5. After pointing out the further factual details, the petitioner has requested the first respondent to amend the eligibility certificate since the sales tax department is insisting the payment of tax calculated on the wrong figures. Thus, the petitioner would state that a mistake had creped in, while they had calculated the base sales volume at the time when they had applied for the eligibility certificate. 6. The first respondent may be right in contending that for six long years, the petitioner did not seek for amendment of the eligibility certificate and only after the second respondent pointed out the mistake and stated that the petitioner has availed the excess benefit under the deferral scheme, the petitioner thought fit to approach the first respondent seeking amendment of the eligibility certificate. Nevertheless, the reason assigned by the first respondent while rejecting the request of the petitioner is incorrect since though the deferral tax holiday granted to the petitioner had expired on 31.03.2003, the agreement contemplates a further condition on the petitioner to commence payment of taxes from 01.04.2003 and the period comes to an end on 31.03.2008. This being the composite agreement under the scheme of deferral, it will not be correct on the part of the first respondent to state that the eligibility certificate has expired, rather what has expired is the benefit of the tax holiday which was granted to the petitioner which expired on 31.03.2003. However, the obligation on the part of the dealer to pay the taxes from 01.04.2003 did not expire at the relevant point of time when the impugned order was passed. The dealer was under obligation as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, till 31.03.2008, they should pay taxes. However, the obligation on the part of the dealer to pay the taxes from 01.04.2003 did not expire at the relevant point of time when the impugned order was passed. The dealer was under obligation as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, till 31.03.2008, they should pay taxes. Therefore, if this stand taken in the impugned order is to be taken as correct, then it will have disastrous consequence and would directly affect the interest of the revenue. Therefore, the reason assigned in the impugned order has to be necessarily faulted. 7. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, in paragraph 12, the petitioner has taken a specific stand that by letter dated 26.05.2003, in letter No.ID/ST/SVTL/1999, the first respondent issued the amendment letter in respect of the eligibility certificate dated 20.10.1997 for the Kariyampalayam Village expansion unit, wherein the first respondent directed the amendment to the sales turnover of the base year 1994-1995 at Rs.1059.68 lakhs. However, with regard to the eligibility certificate dated 24.11.1997, the same has been rejected by the impugned order. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, there is no specific plea raised with regard to amendment which was granted by the first respondent by letter dated 26.05.2003 in respect of the eligibility certificate dated 20.10.1997. Therefore, if the first respondent was convinced with regard to to other eligibility certificate dated 20.10.1997 and made an amendment of the base figure for the year 1994-1995, nothing should prevent the first respondent from carrying out the amendment in the eligibility certificate dated 24.11.1997. 8. In any event, the reason assigned by the first respondent having found to be unsustainable, the impugned order calls for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the first respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.05.2003 for amendment of the base sales volume in the eligibility certificate dated 24.11.1997 and by taking into consideration the amendment which was effected by the first respondent by letter dated 26.05.2003 in letter No.ID/ST/SVTL/1999 amending the eligibility certificate dated 20.10.1997. The first respondent is directed to complete the above said direction within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner or their authorized representative.