ORDER : P. Sam Koshy, J. Heard Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appearing on behalf of the petitioner; and Mr. A.Srinath, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The instant Tax Revision Cases are filed by the petitioner - State under Section 22(1) read with Rule 10 of the APGST Rules under the APGST Act challenging the orders passed by the learned Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (for short, the ‘STAT’), dated 15.06.2009, in different Tax Appeals preferred by the respondent Company. Except for the period of assessment, the grounds and contentions put forth by either side are of identical nature. Therefore, we proceed to decide these nine cases by this Common Order. 3. The assessment year involved in these nine cases for ready reference is reflected in the table below. Sl. No. TREVC No. Assessment Year 01. 258 of 2009 1997- 1998 (CST) 02. 259 of 2009 1997- 1998 (CST) 03. 260 of 2009 1998- 1999 (CST) 04. 271 of 2009 1999- 2000 (APGST) 05. 274 of 2009 1999- 2000 (CST) 06. 276 of 2009 1997- 1998 (APGST) 07. 278 of 2009 2000- 2001 (CST) 08. 54 of 2010 1996- 1997 (CST) 09. 130 of 2010 2001- 2002 (APGST) 4. The facts of the case are that the respondent Company is in the business of re-filling Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPGs) in small cylinders. The Government of Andhra Pradesh (unified) had issued G.O.Ms.No.117, dated 07.03.1993, modifying the earlier G.O.Ms.No.498 allowing sales tax deferment / tax holiday on products manufactured in new industrial units. Another G.O. was issued i.e. G.O.Ms.No.108, dated 25.08.1996, whereby sales tax exemption as also the investment subsidy to new industrial units located in the State of Andhra Pradesh was introduced. In terms of the G.O.Ms.No.117, dated 07.03.1993, the State Government issued a final eligibility certificate and sanction of incentives allowing sales tax deferment to the tune of Rs.2,83,67,000/- for a period of ten years between 01.01.1995 to 31.12.2005. Subsequently, pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.108, dated 25.08.1996, the respondent Company was yet again issued a final eligibility certificate and sanction of incentives allowing sales tax deferment to the tune of Rs.9,40,83,500/- for a period of seven years between 01.12.1996 to 31.01.2003. Subsequently, pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.108, dated 25.08.1996, the respondent Company was yet again issued a final eligibility certificate and sanction of incentives allowing sales tax deferment to the tune of Rs.9,40,83,500/- for a period of seven years between 01.12.1996 to 31.01.2003. The said sales tax deferment or the benefits that could accrue in terms of G.O.Ms.No.117 and G.O.Ms.No.108 was granted considering the respondent Company to be a manufacturing unit which is the requirement for getting benefits under the aforesaid incentive scheme. However, the unified Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of another similar business operators held that the nature of business conducted i.e. of re- filling LPG cylinders would not fall under the definition of manufacture and, therefore, sales tax incentives cannot be availed. Pursuant to the said decision of the unified Andhra Pradesh High Court, the State Government issued an order cancelling the sales tax incentive sanctioned under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.108 vide order dated 24.11.2003 and the final eligibility certificate also consequentially got cancelled on the same day. Later on, the petitioner - State started raising demand of payment of sales tax from the respondent Company on the ground that since the final eligibility certificate has been cancelled, the respondent Company is held to be a non-manufacturing unit and it would be liable to pay sales tax on the turnover of tax made. 5. According to the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, the respondent Company would be liable to pay sales tax for the entire duration during which they availed the deferment of sales tax pursuant to the final eligibility certificate being issued. However, the Assessing Officer as also the Appellate Deputy Commissioner held the respondent Company liable for payment of sales tax on the ground that once when the eligibility certificate stands cancelled; it goes without saying that the respondent Company thereafter is entitled for payment of sales tax. It is this order of the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Deputy Commissioner which stands reversed by the learned Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal leading to filing of the present batch of Tax Revision Cases by the petitioner - State. 6. It is this order of the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Deputy Commissioner which stands reversed by the learned Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal leading to filing of the present batch of Tax Revision Cases by the petitioner - State. 6. The STAT was of the view that since admittedly the respondent Company had a final eligibility certificate so far as deferment of sales tax incentive in their favour and which stood cancelled w.e.f. 24.11.2003 only, and for the period during which the final eligibility certificate was in vogue, the respondent Company cannot be saddled with the liability of payment of sales tax for the period during which it availed the benefit of tax deferment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.108 and accordingly allowed the appeals of the respondent. However, according to the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, once when the final eligibility certificate having been cancelled by the State, the respondent Company is held to be not entitled for tax deferment incentive and neither would the respondent Company be entitled for any tax deferment during the intervening period. 7. It was the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax that once when it has been held by the unified Andhra Pradesh High Court that the entire nature of business carried out by the assessee is not that of manufacturing, and it had erroneously availed the benefit of tax deferment, the assessee would not fall under the ambit of an exempted category. 8. In the light of the aforesaid contentions put forth by the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, the only question now to be considered is “will the respondent Company be entitled for deferment of payment of sales tax even though the final eligibility certificate has been cancelled, more particularly when it has been held that the respondent Company was not running any manufacturing unit?” 9. To deal with this issue, it would be necessary at this juncture to consider the finding of fact given by the STAT while allowing the appeals of the respondent. To deal with this issue, it would be necessary at this juncture to consider the finding of fact given by the STAT while allowing the appeals of the respondent. The relevant portion of the findings given by the STAT for ready reference are reproduced hereunder from the lead case TREVC No.258 of 2009, viz., “On the second point, the finding of the High Court is as hereunder: "The liability to pay tax arising out of cancellation of incentives would start from the date on which such orders become operative and it shall be open to the Government to recover any tax from such units, if it is found that they have collected the sales tax on such product during the subsistence of the incentives". For coming to the conclusion on the said point, the reasoning of the Hon'ble High Court is as follows: 'Whatever may be the nature of activity undertaken by the Petitioners, one thing is clear. The Respondents held out a clear and unambiguous promise to the Petitioners to the effect that if they established the industries in question, they were to be entitled for the various incentives provided for under the scheme. Any doubt that existed in this behalf stood removed with the issuance of final eligibility certificate to the Petitioners, with specific reference to GO Ms No. 108. It is not as if the Petitioners made any misrepresentation to the respondents as to the nature of their activity or the various steps involved in their industries. The respondents were clearly of the view that the Petitioners are entitled for the benefit, and have accordingly extended the same. It may be true that in the ultimate analysis, the respondents ought not to have extended the benefit at all. If it were to be a case, where the incentives in the form of permitting the petitioners to collect the tax and appropriate the same for themselves without remitting it to the Government, things would have been different. With the finding that they were not entitled for such benefit, there would not have be any difficulty in making the petitioners to shell down what they have collected towards tax. However, in the scheme under consideration, the Petitioners other beneficiaries, who are extended the incentives, were prohibited from collecting the tax. With the finding that they were not entitled for such benefit, there would not have be any difficulty in making the petitioners to shell down what they have collected towards tax. However, in the scheme under consideration, the Petitioners other beneficiaries, who are extended the incentives, were prohibited from collecting the tax. Clause (vi) of the letter of final eligibility reads as under: "Clause (vi): The SSI units are not entitled to collect sales tax from the consumers and further they would be liable to remit the sales tax collected to the Government in case they collect sales tax during the availment period of sales tax exemption." Therefore, once the Petitioners were not only disabled, but in fact, were prohibited from collecting tax, it is impermissible to compel them to pay the tax, which they did not collect. This observation of ours is not without judicial authority. In Pawan Alloys & Castings Put Ltd Vs. UPSEB reported in 1997 (7) SCC 251 , the Supreme Court held that the principle of promissory estoppels applies against the Government, but it has to yield, if there exists a supervening public equity. It was made clear that, it is for the Courts to examine and verify as to whether there existed such supervening public equity, warranting abrogation of the liability of Government under the principles of promissory estoppel". The reasoning given by the High Court clearly indicates that only on the promise made by the Government, the appellant started the Bottling Unit under the impression that sales tax deferment would be given to them. In fact, accordingly final eligibility certificates were granted in favour of the appellants incorporating a clause that they should not collect sales tax from their consumers. The contention of the appellant is that accordingly they did not collect sales tax from their consumers. Hence, the contention of the State Representative that in view of the decision rendered by High Court in the case of M/s SHV Energy South East Limited Vs. State Instrument Promotion Board (26 APSTJ 37), referred supra has been set-aside by the High Court and was negatived so far as collection of tax by the Department when the assessee did not collect tax from the consumers. State Instrument Promotion Board (26 APSTJ 37), referred supra has been set-aside by the High Court and was negatived so far as collection of tax by the Department when the assessee did not collect tax from the consumers. In the above same decision, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed that in case the assessee collected tax from their customers, it shall be open to the department to recover the same from the petitioners. Hence, we are of the opinion, the same analogy has to be applied in the present case also. In the event, if it is found that the appellant collected sales tax from their customers, the Respondent is at liberty to collect the same. But till the date of cancellation of these certificates, the liability to pay tax cannot be enforced against them. The final eligibility certificates became inoperative with effect from 24-11-2003, when the Commissioner of Industries cancelled these certificates. Hence, till 24-11-2003, these final eligibility certificates were in force. But however if it is found tax was collected during the subsistence of these certificates, the appellant is liable to pay tax. Accordingly, this point is found in favour of the appellant and against the respondent.” 10. In the instant case also admittedly there was a final eligibility certificate issued and the said final eligibility certificate was cancelled only from 24.11.2003 and beyond 24.11.2003 there is no dispute for the subsequent period that the respondent Company has committed any default. From the year 1993 till 2003, the respondent Company had a final eligibility certificate with it. Further, the respondent Company also in view of the final eligibility certificate having been issued had not collected sales tax from its customers. 11. A similar issue came up before the unified Andhra Pradesh High Court in a batch of cases i.e. TREVC Nos.10, 13 and 14 of 2010, decided on 06.01.2012, wherein the Division Bench has held as under: “The respondent is a dealer engaged in the business of refilling Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG). In their returns for the assessment year 1997-1998, they claimed the benefit of tax deferment allowed by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.108, dated 25.08.1996. It was negatived by the Commercial Tax Officer. Aggrieved, the dealer appealed to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner who by order dated 26.03.2003 rejected the plea. In their returns for the assessment year 1997-1998, they claimed the benefit of tax deferment allowed by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.108, dated 25.08.1996. It was negatived by the Commercial Tax Officer. Aggrieved, the dealer appealed to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner who by order dated 26.03.2003 rejected the plea. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT), however, allowed and remanded the matter observing that the final eligibility certificate issued to the dealer was rendered inoperative from 24.11.2003 only when it was cancelled by the Commissioner of Industries. This Court heard the Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes and the Senior Counsel for the respondent/dealer. In Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. v State of Andhra Pradesh , (2005) 142 STC 76 the appellant obtained the certificate of eligibility for deferment/tax holiday on sales tax as per the policy of the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Ms.No.117, dated 17.03.1993. The certificate was issued on 10.08.1996. Four years thereafter, the same sought to be withdrawn on the ground that the earlier exemption was wrongly granted. The dealer then filed a Writ Petition before this Court, which was dismissed. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court order observing as follows. It is true that on 17th March 2000, the Commissioner of Industries issued a circular cancelling eligibility certificates issued to Industrial Gases bottling units, Mineral Water and sand benefication units. But the Commissioner of Industries had also directed the cancellation of the Temporary/Final Eligibility Certificates issued to such industries with effect from 30th March 2000 and to inform the units to pay sales tax with effect from 31st March 2000 to the Commercial Taxes Department. The cancellation was, therefore, given prospective effect… Following the above judgment, we hold that the respondent/dealer cannot be denied the benefit of sales tax concessions under various Government Orders during the period prior to the cancellation of eligibility certificate issued by the Commissioner of Industries.” 12. In the teeth of the undisputed factual matrix of the case, and taking into consideration the view expressed by the unified High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the earlier round of litigation, the findings arrived at by the STAT, the relevant portion of which is reproduced in the preceding paragraphs, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction, bad in law, perverse, or contrary to the evidence on record. Accordingly, we find no merit in the instant batch of Tax Revision Cases filed by the petitioner - State, and the well-reasoned order of the STAT does not warrant any interference. 13. Therefore, instant batch of Tax Revision Cases, thus fail and are accordingly, dismissed. The question of law stands answered in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner – State. 14. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.