CWP No. 12880 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 12880 of 2001 Date of Decision: 10.5.2011 M/s. Frigoglass India Private Limited ....Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. KTS Tulsi, Senior Advocate with Mr. DNS Shrivastava, Advocate and Mr. Attar Singh Dey, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ. 1. This petition seeks quashing of notices dated 6.7.2001 and 13.8.2001 and also for a direction to the respondents to grant eligibility certificate under Rule 28B or entitlement certificate under Rule 28C from the date of production to the petitioner, i.e. from 25.1.2000. 2. Case of the petitioner is that it started setting up of its unit acting upon industrial policy of the State. Its industrial production started on 25.1.2000. It made an application for tax exemption under Rule 28B of Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 framed under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. The application dated 1.3.2000 was made on 7.3.2000 within the period prescribed under the Rules. No decision was taken on the said application but on 18.8.2000, benefit CWP No. 12880 of 2001 -2- was given under Rule 28C from the date of production. On 19.10.2000, following decision was taken in the Higher Level Screening Committee constituted under the Rules:- “Shri Barun Varma, Senior Manager and Shri Pratik Chatterjee, Asstt. Manager (Finance) appeared on behalf of the industrial unit before the committee. The committee considered and decided to issue eligibility certificate to the company for grant of Sales Tax concession under rule 28-C of Rs.1516.96 lacs for a period of 10 years from the date of commercial production i.e. from 25.1.2000 to 24.1.2010 as opted by the party for the manufacturing of 'Refrigeration Accessories'.” 3. However, the said benefit was withdrawn without any notice to the petitioner on the ground that the entitlement certificate under Rule 28C could not have been granted to a unit which was defaulter of voluntary tax at the time of grant of entitlement certificate. The petitioner was asked to pay tax falling due before 21.3.2001. This was followed by impugned notices for recovery of the tax. 4. The issue raised in the writ petition is that the petitioner having already made an application under Rule 28B for benefits in terms thereof and the petitioner being eligible for the same, it could not be treated to be in default till the application was decided. In any case, the benefit having been given vide decision conveyed on 9.7.2000, the withdrawal could not be made without giving hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner had acquired a right as per the policy dated 1.8.1997. CWP No. 12880 of 2001 -3- The petitioner took steps to set up an industry between the period from 29.7.1998 to 25.1.2000 on account of assurance held out in the said policy. In terms of the said policy, the petitioner being eligible under Rule 28B of the Rules applied for the benefits envisaged thereunder. Without considering the said application, the State allowed benefit under Rule 28C and thereafter sought to withdraw the same without hearing the petitioner on an untenable ground. 5. It is undisputed that the petitioner set up its unit relying upon the industrial policy envisaging tax exemption in terms of the Rules. The State having not considered its case in terms of the said policy, the passing of the impugned order without hearing the petitioner could not be justified. 6. Even though at one stage, learned counsel for the petitioner had made a statement to give up claim under Rule 28B, if the same benefit could be given under Rule 28C by way of compromise, in absence of compromise, the said question still survives. 7. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and direct the concerned authority to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after giving personal hearing to the petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved, it will be at liberty to take remedies in accordance with law. 8. The interim order granted by this Court will continue till a fresh order is passed. The petition is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE May 10, 2011 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE