2000 (7) TMI 933 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Error of law in rejection of eligibility certificate application.
3. Requirement and non-submission of Change of Land Use (CLU) certificate.
4. Legality of assessment order during pendency of appeal.
5. Statutory nature of Rule 28-A(5)(a) and Form S.T. 70.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner argued that the Lower Level Screening Committee (LLSC) did not provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing before rejecting the application for an eligibility certificate. The court noted that the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ambala, failed to indicate the date for the petitioner's representative to appear before the LLSC. This omission left the petitioner unaware of the meeting date, resulting in the rejection of the application without a fair hearing. The court found that this constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to present their case.

2. Error of Law in Rejection of Eligibility Certificate Application:
The petitioner contended that the rejection of their application by the LLSC and the Higher Level Screening Committee (HLSC) was arbitrary and demonstrated non-application of mind. The court examined Rule 28-A(5)(a) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975, which mandates the submission of an application in Form S.T. 70. The court held that the requirements in Form S.T. 70 are statutory and non-compliance would result in rejection of the application. However, the court noted that the LLSC's decision was flawed due to the violation of natural justice principles.

3. Requirement and Non-Submission of Change of Land Use (CLU) Certificate:
The petitioner's application was rejected for not submitting the CLU certificate. The court analyzed the statutory nature of Rule 28-A(5)(a) and Form S.T. 70, concluding that the requirement to produce a CLU certificate is mandatory to prevent unregulated and haphazard development. Despite this, the court found that the LLSC's decision was invalid due to procedural unfairness.

4. Legality of Assessment Order During Pendency of Appeal:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Assessing Authority, Ambala, during the pendency of their appeal. The respondents argued that the assessment was in accordance with the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, as the application for an eligibility certificate had been rejected. The court did not specifically address this issue in detail but focused on the procedural fairness of the rejection process.

5. Statutory Nature of Rule 28-A(5)(a) and Form S.T. 70:
The court emphasized that Rule 28-A(5)(a) and the conditions in Form S.T. 70 are statutory, and non-compliance would lead to rejection of the application. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor Service Warora, highlighting that prescribed forms are integral to the rules and must be substantially complied with.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, declaring the decisions of the LLSC and HLSC as illegal and quashing them due to the violation of natural justice principles. The LLSC was directed to reconsider the petitioner's application afresh, providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Additionally, the court imposed costs of Rs. 5,000 on the respondents, to be recovered from the officer who provided a distorted version of the notice to the petitioner.

← Previous Next →