2003 (4) TMI 519 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to decisions of Lower Level Screening Committee and Higher Level Screening Committee regarding correction in eligibility certificate under Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing and sale of solvent extracted oil, applied for an eligibility certificate under rule 28A of the Rules. The certificate was issued entitling the petitioner to exemption from sales tax. After availing full exemption, the petitioner sought correction in the eligibility certificate, claiming entitlement to further exemption based on the location of its unit in a notified backward area. The application for correction was rejected by the Screening Committees, leading to the writ petition challenging the decisions.

The petitioner argued that the rejection of the application for correction was illegal, citing a policy by the Government of Haryana granting exemption to industries in Zone "A". However, the respondent contended that the eligibility certificate had become final and that there was no provision for correction after a certain period. The petitioner's counsel acknowledged the absence of a provision for review but emphasized the mistake in not granting the appropriate certificate initially.

The Court examined the eligibility certificate and noted that the petitioner had availed the tax exemption before seeking correction. It was observed that the petitioner did not challenge the initial certificate through the available appeal process. The Court held that there was no provision for correcting an eligibility certificate after the specified period and that the petitioner's remedy was to file an appeal within thirty days, which was not done. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the decisions of the Screening Committees.

In conclusion, the Court found that the rejection of the petitioner's request for correction in the eligibility certificate was not illegal as there was no provision for such corrections after the prescribed period. The Court emphasized the importance of following the appeal process within the specified timeframe and upheld the decisions of the Screening Committees. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed.