Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hallary Footwear (P) Ltd. vs State Of Haryana And Others on 26 August, 1998
Author: Iqbal Singh
Bench: Iqbal Singh
JUDGMENT G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. The only point which arises for adjudication in this petition is whether the rejection of petitioner's application for grant of eligibility certificate is legally correct and justified.
2. The facts necessary for deciding this case are that the petitioner who is engaged in the manufacture of Hawai chappals and shoes in its factory at Bahadurgarh, District Rohtak and who is registered under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") applied for grant of eligibility certificate under rule 28-A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") . The lower level screening committee rejected the petitioner's request on the ground that the application is time-barred and the higher level screening committee dismissed its appeal in identical ground.
3. Shri P. C. Goyal argued that the application dated December 13, 1996 submitted by the petitioner could not have been rejected as time-barred because the petitioner was not entitled to apply for grant of eligibility certificate till October 30, 1996 in view of the fact that the goods manufactured by it were included in the list of tax-free goods specified in Schedule "B" of the Act till October 30, 1996. He further argued that the rejection of the application submitted by the petitioner is violative of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the reasons which constitute basis of the decisions of the lower level screening committee and the higher level screening committee have not been communicated to it. Shri Jaswant Singh supported the impugned decisions by arguing that the application filed by the petitioner after 90 days of the commencement of production, i.e., February 15, 1994 has been rightly rejected as time-barred in view of rule 28-A(5) of the rules. He, however, fairly conceded that the goods manufactured by the petitioner were included at item No. 71 in the list of tax-free goods till October 30, 1996.
4. After considering the respective submissions, we are of the view that the impugned decisions deserve to be invalidated on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice because the decisions of the lower level screening committee and the higher level screening committee to reject the petitioner's application are totally devoid of reasons. A bare reading of annexures P3 and P6 shows that what has been communicated to the petitioner are the bald conclusions recorded by the two authorities and not the reasons which could give an indication of the application of mind by the concerned authorities on the request made by the petitioner for grant of eligibility certificate. In our opinion, the lower level screening committee and the higher level screening committee should have addressed themselves to the question whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the grant of eligibility certificate on the basis of application on submitted by it on December 13, 1996 in the background of the of the fact that the goods manufactured by it were exempted from payment of sales tax. However, instead of doing that, both the committees have summarily rejected the application by treating it as time-barred and that too without assigning cogent reasons for the same. We, therefore, hold that the impugned decisions are vitiated due to violation of the principles of natural justice.
5. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. Annexures P3 and P6 are quashed with a direction to the lower level screening committee to reconsider the application of the petitioner for grant of eligibility certificate and decide it on merits by recording reasons in support of its decision. However, it is made clear that this decision of ours shall not be construed as a direction for grant of eligibility certificate to take appropriate decision in accordance with law.
6. Writ Petition allowed.