9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 908X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t New Delhi, which is clear from annexure P3. The counsel had not appeared before the committee on February 22, 2012, the date fixed for hearing and the manager of the petitioner-company appeared and prayed for some time but the said request was declined and the order passed by respondent No. 2 was maintained. Since vide the impugned order serious civil consequences have visited the petitioner, it is entitled for a proper hearing. There was no appearance on its behalf and the matter was never decided on the merits but on the basis of the record of the respondents. The petitioner is, thus, entitled to an opportunity of hearing before passing any order against it. W.P. allowed. - CWP :11362 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 19-9-2012 - AJAY KUMAR MITT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cs and was availing of this benefit with effect from April 1, 2003, when the VAT Act was introduced. The dealer exercising the option as provided under the VAT Act opted for 50:50 scheme of deferment. The production at the unit of the petitioner was stopped for some time as the machinery developed some defect which could not be repaired and during this period DETC, Rohtak visited the factory premises and informed the Industries Department with regard to suspension of the production at the site. Respondent No. 2 took up the matter under rule 28A(8)(a) of the Rules for withdrawal of the benefit on account of stoppage of manufacturing activity for more than six months. Since the factory was closed, the notice was received back unserved and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad discontinued for a continuous period of six months. The plant and machinery had been removed and the power of the unit had also been disconnected. Accordingly, under the Rules, the eligibility certificate granted to the unit was liable to be withdrawn as the Block Level Extension Officer (Industries) visited the unit on December 22, 2005 and reported that the unit was lying closed and no labour/person was present there. The case was put up before the lower level screening committee in its meeting held on December 27, 2005 and the petitioner-company was also served registered notice to appear before it. No one appeared on December 27, 2005 and the letter dated February 16, 2006 was sent at the factory address through the Block Level Exten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the hearing for one reason or the other. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner cannot be penalized for non-appearance of its counsel and the notice was never sent to the petitioner-company at its registered address of Paharganj, New Delhi. On the other hand, counsel for the State has justified the order urging that the petitioner had been given several opportunities by the higher level screening committee. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it may be noticed that the stand of the petitioner is that the machinery had developed some defect and was sent for repairing. At that point of time, the inspection had been carried out. A perusal of annexure P4 shows that registered A.D. notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
