IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 10069 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 10, 2009 M/s Cast Master ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vijay Pal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant petition is directed against orders dated 19.1.2007 and 20.4.2009 (P-8 & P-9A respectively) whereby the Higher Level Screening Committee (HLSC) has rejected the claim of the petitioner for granting Sales- tax concession on the ground that it failed to satisfy the requirement of Rule 28C of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (for brevity, ‘the Rules’), inasmuch as, there was no lease of land taken by the petitioner on the cut off date of 30.4.2000. The finding recorded by the HLSC is that one of the conditions envisaged by clause (o) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 28C of the Rules that the unit in pipeline must have arranged land or premises by way of purchase, allotment, lease or rent on 30.4.2000. The lease deed in respect of the premises produced before HLSC was of 22.9.2000 and accordingly it was CWP No. 10069 of 2009 held vide order dated 19.1.2007 that the petitioner’s unit did not satisfy the condition envisaged by the Rules. The petitioner thereafter sought review of the order by assering that lease deed dated 1.1.1998 for a period of five years by the petitioner unit has been obtained, which is much prior to the cut off date of 30.4.2000. The review application was also dismissed. Although some observation has been made that the review is not competent but still the matter has been dealt with on merit. The HLSC has reiterated its order. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that the Sales-tax concession was sought for a period of seven years and the aforesaid period is already over in the year 2007. The petitioner did not consider it proper to challenge order dated 19.1.2007 passed by the HLSC for more than two years and continued pursuing the remedy of review for the reasons best known to it. In the meanwhile, the petitioner’s unit has been collecting tax and no useful purpose would now be served even if the concession in Sales-tax is extended as the period of seven years has expired. The claim of the petitioner even otherwise is not meritorious as the original deed of 1.1.1998 was merely for five years, which could not be accepted as the concession from Sales-tax was made for a period of seven years. Moreover, the unit is expected to continue for some more time after seven years period. In any case, the lease deed of 1.1.1998 could not be relied upon. There is, thus, no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) July 10, 2009 JUDGE 2 CWP No. 10069 of 2009 Pkapoor 3