2002 (12) TMI 574 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 regarding the commencement date of eligibility certificate for tax exemption.
2. Inclusion of all products applied for in the eligibility certificate.
3. Consideration of representations made by the petitioner regarding the eligibility certificate.

Issue 1: Interpretation of rule 28A regarding commencement date of eligibility certificate:
The petitioner, a public limited company, applied for an eligibility certificate under rule 28A of the Rules for manufacturing packing material. The rule allows the dealer to opt for the certificate to commence from the date of commercial production or from the date of the exemption certificate. The petitioner initially opted for the latter but later requested the commencement from the date of commercial production. The Court held that the rule does not bar changing the option for the commencement date of the eligibility certificate. The Higher Level Screening Committee overlooked this request, leading to a justified grievance by the petitioner. The Court directed the certificate to commence from the date of commercial production.

Issue 2: Inclusion of all products in the eligibility certificate:
The petitioner applied for the eligibility certificate for manufacturing jars, bottles, and caps. However, the certificate granted only covered jars and bottles, omitting caps. The Court found this omission unjustified and held that the petitioner was entitled to have all products included in the certificate as applied for. The representations made by the petitioner were not adequately considered by the Higher Level Screening Committee, leading to a sound grievance by the petitioner. The Court directed the inclusion of caps in the eligibility certificate.

Issue 3: Consideration of representations made by the petitioner:
The petitioner's representations regarding rectifying errors in the eligibility certificate were not adequately considered by the authorities. The Court found that the representations were not treated as appeals under the Rules, and even if filed beyond the limitation period, the grievances raised were valid. The Court directed the authorities to consider and rectify the errors pointed out by the petitioner in a timely manner.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order fixing the commencement date of benefits, and directed the authorities to grant benefits from the date of commercial production. The inclusion of caps in the eligibility certificate was also mandated. The Court emphasized timely compliance with the directions provided, without imposing any costs on the parties involved.