9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 936X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y yarn, worsted yarn and acrylic yarn in the industrial unit set up by it at Kabari Road, Panipat. In 1995-96, it applied for grant of eligibility certificate under rule 28A(5)(a) of the Rules. The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Panipat, issued eligibility certificate vide letter annexure P-2 dated May 21, 1996 entitling the petitioner to claim tax exemption to the tune of Rs. 41,66,887. Thereafter, the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Panipat, issued exemption certificate, annexure P-3. However, just after issuance of eligibility and exemption certificates, the Lower Level Screening Committee took a decision to withdraw eligibility certificate on the ground that the petitioner had set up the industry without obtaining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not produced no objection certificate from the concerned authority of the Town and Country Planning Department permitting the change of land use and, therefore, eligibility certificate could not have been issued in its favour. 7.. Shri D.D. Verma referred to section 13B of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short, "the Act") and rule 28A of the Rules and argued that the decision of the Lower Level Screening Committee should be declared as void on the ground of violation of the rules of natural justice. He submitted that before deciding to withdraw the eligibility certificate, the Lower Level Screening Committee did not give any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel argued that even in the absence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not have issued eligibility certificate without ensuring compliance of the statutory requirement of CLU/NOC. He then referred to rule 28A(5)(a) and submitted that as the application for issuance of eligibility certificate is required to be submitted in form S.T. 70, the conditions stipulated therein should be treated as statutory and non-compliance thereof could constitute a valid ground to decline the eligibility certificate. 8.. We have thoughtfully considered the respective submissions. In our opinion, the impugned decision deserves to be invalidated on the ground of violation of the rule of audi alteram partem. It cannot be denied that the eligibility certificate issued by the competent authority on the basis of the decision taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a specific reference in the scheme of the Rules it cannot be treated as a part of the statute and non-compliance of the conditions stipulated therein are inconsequential. Prima facie, we are of the view that the stipulations contained in form S.T. 70 are statutory and non-compliance thereof may justify rejection of an application for issuance of eligibility certificate. However, that is an issue on which we do not want to express final opinion in this case. We also do not consider it proper to deal with the submission of the Deputy Advocate-General that withdrawal of the eligibility certificate was justified because the very grant thereof was contrary to the conditions enumerated in form S.T. 70. In our opinion, both the issues can approp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
