9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1088X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... review application of the petitioner was dismissed on January 30, 2009. The petitioner remained quiet till June 9, 2010 for a period of about 1½ years. The petition thus, suffers from laches. Apart from this, there is concurrent finding of fact recorded by original authority and the appellate authority that the petitioner closed its unit in violation of conditions for exemption which finding has not been shown to be perverse. Petition dismissed. - 21593 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 3-12-2010 - ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ . JUDGMENT:- The judgment of the court was delivered by Adarsh Kumar Goel J. This petition seeks quashing of order dated April 21, 2006 passed by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... again installed plant and machinery which were earlier shifted to Parwanoo (H.P.). From the condition of the machinery it was also observed that it is lying closed since long. At present, only one mixing machine is operative and rest of the machinery is lying idle. From the perusal of electricity bills it was observed that the industrial unit did not function after January, 2004. Moreover, G. sets installed in the unit are also not in operational condition since long. Moreover, it was also noted from the sales tax quarterly return that the unit has remained out of production more than six months. It is showing nominal sales after January, 2004 of the items which were produced in the plant before January, 2004. The promoter of the compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd written submissions made by the unit and decided to reject the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review application which was dismissed on January 30, 2009. The petitioner is stated to have made a further application on June 9, 2010 which was dismissed on August 5, 2010. The contention raised in the petition is that the Director of Industries and Commerce, Haryana, was not empowered to take decision on behalf of Higher Level Screening Committee in view of the order passed by this court in Civil Writ Petition No. 14681 of 2006 (Alcatel South Asia Ltd. v. State of Haryana [2010] 31 VST 567) decided on April 7, 2010. The relevant provision of rule 28B(10)(a)(ii), (iii) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 is as un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
