Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (4) TMI 995

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y the Director, Industries, Haryana, communicated vide October 30, 2000 is quashed. The Director, Industries, Haryana, is directed to place the representation before the High Level Committee and the Committee after hearing the petitioner, shall pass an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law. - C.W.P. No. 14681 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 7-4-2010 - ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND ALOK SINGH , JJ. The judgment of the court was delivered by ALOK SINGH J. By way of present writ petition invoking jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the orders passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal dated September 15, 2005, September 19, 2005 and April 18, 2006. Brief facts of the present case are that t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... il 17, 2002. The sales tax authorities issued notice on April 18, 2003 asking the petitioner to segregate sales for the period October 1996 to January 2001. The petitioner challenged the notice by way of filing C.W.P. No. 15951 of 2003 before this court. However, the petition was dismissed vide order dated October 13, 2003 holding that the petition is not maintainable at the stage of showcause notice. The petitioner moved a representation dated September 3, 2003 asking the authorities to provide exemption from October 7, 1996 instead of April 17, 2002 on the expanded unit. The Director of Industries, Haryana, rejected the representation dated September 3, 2003. No opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. The petitioner preferre .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y 7, 2005. Before the pronouncement of the order dated July 7, 2005, one of the members of the Tribunal Shri B. S. Suhag had already retired and hence, order impugned cannot be said having been passed by the full member Bench Tribunal. The respondents refuted the contents of the writ petition and said that the order was in fact passed by the full member Bench and before retirement everything was over and only judgment was pronounced after the retirement. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. At the beginning, Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, stated that the questions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition pertaining to the competence/procedure to be adopted .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 is being reproduced hereunder: Rule 28A of the 1975 Rules reads as under: Class of industries, period and other conditions for exemption/deferment from payment of tax (sections 13B and 25A). (1) The industries covered under this rule shall not be entitled to any deferment or exemption from payment of tax under any other provisions of these rules. (2) to (4) . . . (5)(a) Every eligible industrial unit which is desirous of availing benefit under this rule shall make an application in form S.T. 70 in triplicate along with attested copies of the documents mentioned therein to the General Manager, District Industries Centre within 90 days of the date of its going into commercial production .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd Taxation Commissioner to the Additional Director of Industries who will place his proposal before the Higher Level Screening Committee within a further period of 15 days for its decision. (f) An appeal from the original decision of the Lower Level Screening Committee shall lie to the Higher Level Screening Committee, if preferred within 30 days of communication of the decision. The decision of the Higher Level Screening Committee in such appeal shall be final. (g) An appeal from the original decision of the Higher Level Screening Committee shall lie to the Secretary, Industries, if preferred within 30 days of communication of the decision. The decision of the Secretary Industries shall be final. From the perusal of the afores .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates