Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 167 (PNJ)

R. K. Mittal Woollen Mills v. State Of Haryana

2000-02-09

N.K.SODHI, N.K.SUD

body2000
Judgment N.K.Sodhi, J. 1. Challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution has been made to communication dated June 30, 1997 addressed by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Panipat, to the petitioner informing the latter that the Lower Level Screening Committee in its meeting held on June 19, 1997 decided to withdraw the eligibility certificate already issued to the petitioner on May 22, 1996. Feeling aggrieved by the action of the Lower Level Screening Committee, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Higher Level Screening Committee and the same was dismissed on July 1, 1999. The communication dated June 30, 1997 and the decision of the Lower Level Screening Committee withdrawing the eligibility certificate have been challenged on two grounds : (i) that the petitioner was not issued any show cause notice against the proposed action of withdrawal nor was it afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned decision was taken ; and (ii) that the eligibility certificate has been withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner had been granted the said certificate without its obtaining change of land use permission from the Town and Country Planning Department, which was necessary as per the decision of the Higher Level Screening Committee taken in its meeting held on March 20, 1997. 2. The learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has, on receiving instructions from the departmental representative who is present in court, conceded before us that before withdrawing the eligibility certificate, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing. This being so, the impugned communication and the order of the Lower Level Screening Committee withdrawing the eligibility certificate cannot be sustained. 3. We have heard counsel for the parties. 4. We were inclined to remand the case to the Lower Level Screening Committee to examine the matter afresh but we find that, in the circumstances of the case, it is not necessary to do so because the eligibility certificate has been withdrawn on a ground which is not permissible under the law. A perusal of the communication (annexure P-1 with the writ petition) makes it clear that the eligibility certificate has been withdrawn because of the non-production of the change of land use permission by the petitioner from the Town and Country Planning Department. A perusal of the communication (annexure P-1 with the writ petition) makes it clear that the eligibility certificate has been withdrawn because of the non-production of the change of land use permission by the petitioner from the Town and Country Planning Department. This permission, according to the respondents, was necessary to be obtained in view of the decision taken by the Higher Level Screening Committee in its meeting held on March 20, 1997. The eligibility certificate was granted to the petitioner under Rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 subject to the conditions mentioned in that rule. The grounds on which such a certificate can be withdrawn or cancelled have also been specified in Sub-rules (8) and (9) of Rule 28A of the aforesaid Rules. Sub-rule (8) of Rule 28A, with which we are concerned in the present case, is reproduced hereunder for facility of reference : "(8)(a) The eligibility certificate granted to an industrial unit shall be liable to be withdrawn at any time during its currency from the date of its grant by the appropriate screening committee, in the following circumstances : (i) if it is discovered that it has been obtained by fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, mis-statement or concealment of material fact ; (ii) discontinuance of its business by the unit or closing down of its business for a continuous period exceeding six months except in case of strike or lock-out which in the opinion of the committee concerned is beyond the control of the unit ; and (iii) disposal or transfer by the unit of any of its fixed assets adversely affecting its manufacturing or production capacity : Provided that no order of withdrawal of the eligibility certificate shall be made without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the affected unit. (b) When the eligibility certificate is withdrawn, the exemption/ entitlement certificate shall be deemed to have been withdrawn from the 1st day of its validity and the unit shall be liable to payment of interest or penalty under the Act as if no entitlement certificate had ever been granted to it." 5. A perusal of the aforesaid sub-rule would show that the grounds on which the eligibility certificate can be withdrawn are mentioned therein but the ground of non-production of the change of land use permission from the Town and Country Planning Department is not one of the grounds mentioned therein. A perusal of the aforesaid sub-rule would show that the grounds on which the eligibility certificate can be withdrawn are mentioned therein but the ground of non-production of the change of land use permission from the Town and Country Planning Department is not one of the grounds mentioned therein. Sub-rule (8) of Rule 28A being a part of a taxing statute has, in the nature of things, to be construed very strictly and, therefore, the eligibility certificate can be withdrawn only on the grounds mentioned therein and on no other grounds. The authorities cannot add any other ground to the said sub-rule. We are, therefore, satisfied that the eligibility certificate granted to the petitioner could not be withdrawn only on the ground of non-production of the change of land use permission by the Town and Country Planning Department. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned action of the Lower Level Screening Committee withdrawing the eligibility certificate in its meeting held on June 19, 1997, as affirmed by the Higher Level Screening Committee, quashed. We, however, make it clear that if any of the grounds mentioned in Sub-rule (8) of Rule 28A of the Rules is available to the respondents, it will be open to them to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner will have its costs, which are assessed at Rs. 1,000.