9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 933X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or grant of eligibility certificate was rejected by the Lower Level Screening Committee on the ground of non-submission of change of land use certificate (for short, "CLU certificate"). The appeal filed by it against the decision of the Lower Level Screening Committee was dismissed by the Higher Level Screening Committee on the same ground. 3.. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned decisions on the ground of violation of the rules of natural justice and arbitrariness/non-application of mind. In the writ petition, it has been averred that before rejecting the application filed under Rule 28-A on the ground of non-submission of CLU certificate, the Lower Level Screening Committee did not give opportunity to show that production of such certificate was necessary for grant of eligibility certificate. The petitioner has also challenged the order of assessment passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Assessing Authority, Ambala, by alleging that during the pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the decision of the Lower Level Screening Committee, the officer concerned could not have taken action for levy of tax. 4.. In the written statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated development of the area in which the petitioner has set up industry and, therefore, even though the Industries Department may not have raised any objection on this score, it cannot seek exemption from payment of tax without specifying the prescribed conditions. 9.. We shall first deal with the argument of Shri Verma that rule 28-A(5)(a) is directory in nature and, therefore, non-production of the certificates enumerated in clause (3) of form S.T. 70 was inconsequential and the Lower Level Screening Committee has gravely erred in rejecting the application on that ground. For the purpose of appreciating the argument of the learned counsel in a correct perspective, we may refer to the provisions of section 13B of the 1973 Act, rule 28-A(5)(a), (b), (d) and (h) of the 1975 Rules and the extracts of form S.T. 70. The same are reproduced below: "Section 13B of the 1973 Act: Power to exempt certain class of industries.-The State Government may, if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of industrial development of the State, exempt such class of industries from the payment of tax, for such period and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rict Industries Centre, ................District. Sir, In accordance with rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975, I,....................(name) on behalf of the industrial unit as mentioned hereunder hereby apply for the grant of eligibility certificate for tax................. *exemption/*deferment for a period of............. years and opts to avail the benefit from the date of commercial production or from the issue of entitlement/exemption certificate. ........................ 3. The following annexures are submitted herewith: (i) Certificate from Chartered Accountant regarding estimated liability of sales tax for the period for which application is made; (ii) certificate from the Chartered Accountant regarding fixed assets on the date of commercial production including the assets of the unit as erected at site and paid for within 60 days of commercial production; (iii) latest copy of partnership deed/Memorandum and Articles of Association, List of Directors and the 10 major shareholders/partners; (iv) copy of power of attorney or certified copy of resolution passed by the Board of Directors authorising a particular person to apply for the gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he rule and held as under: "An application for a permit, apart from containing the particulars referred to in clauses (a) to (e) of section 46, must also contain, under clause (f), such other matters as may be prescribed by Rules. The form prescribed by the rule 80 of the Rules framed by the Maharashtra State requiring the furnishing of information on the various particulars and matters referred to therein is not beyond the rule-making power of the Government. Therefore, the relevant rule and the form prescribed, have to be read together, and so read it follows that an applicant for a permit must comply, at any rate, substantially with the various matters mentioned therein. Section 68 is not controlled by section 46 of the Act. The form so prescribed forms an integral part of rule 80 which the State Government is authorised to make, under section 68 of the Act." 11.. On the basis of above discussion, we hold that form S.T. 70 is a part of the scheme of rule 28A and an application for eligibility certificate has to be submitted in the said form. 12.. We are further of the view that having regard to the purpose of incorporating the requirement of producing CLU certificate, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made in paragraphs 3 to 5 of the affidavit of Smt. Sunita Jindal, annexures D-2 and R-4. The same are reproduced below: "Paragraphs 3 to 5 of the affidavit of Smt. Sunita Jindal: 3.. That the Higher Level Screening Committee in its meeting held on March 20, 1997 decided that no case could be considered for the grant of sales tax exemption without obtaining certificate of change of land use from Town and Country Planning Department and any benefit already given should be withdrawn immediately as would be observed from annexure D-1 to this affidavit. 4.. That the deponent received memo No. S.T./DIC/Amb/IST/1910 dated June 9, 1997 for appearance before L.L.S.C. from the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ambala, without mentioning any date for appearance. The original copy of the said notice, in which no date of the meeting of L.L.S.C. is indicated is enclosed as annexure D-2 to this affidavit. 5.. That the deponent received no notice for June 24, 1997 on which date the L.L.S.C. decided to reject the application of deponent as per intimation received vide G.M. DIC's letter dated July 11, 1997 which is P5 to impugned C.W.P. Annexure D-2: From General Manager, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ittee, the officer concerned did not indicate the date on which the petitioner's representative was to appear. This left the petitioner to grope in dark about the date on which the Lower Level Screening Committee was to meet for considering its application for grant of exemption. Notwithstanding this, the Lower Level Screening Committee in its meeting held on June 20, 1997, rejected the petitioner's application on account of non-submission of CLU certificate. Annexure R-4 is a distorted version of annexure D-2, inasmuch as, third paragraph of that document has been left out. In our opinion, this has been done by the officer concerned with a view to mislead the court in believing that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner on account of violation of the principles of natural justice. Shri Jaswant Singh tried to convince us that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner due to the denial of opportunity of hearing to its representative and, therefore, the court may not interfere with the impugned decision, but we have not felt impressed because one of the points raised by the petitioner in support of its claim for grant of exemption certificate is that other industries ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
