IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.5695 of 1988 Date of decision: 14.7.2011 Messrs Maha Luxmi Oil & General Industries. -----Petitioner. Vs. The Assessing Authority, Hissar. -----Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- None for the petitioner. Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G., Haryana --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 9.6.1988, Annexure P-5, whereby exemption given to the petitioner on payment of sales tax under the provisions of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 has been cancelled. 2. Case of the petitioner is that as per policy laid down by the State of Haryana vide notification dated 2.6.1979, exemption was granted on purchase of machinery and equipment not exceeding `1 lac for rural tiny units subject to the conditions laid down in the said notification. The machinery purchased by the petitioner was exempted under the said notification. On C.W.P. No.5695 of 1988 application of the petitioner, the exemption certificate dated 27.7.1985, Annexure P-2, was granted to it. Subsequently, after issuing Show Cause Notice, proposing to cancel the exemption on the ground that the machinery was marginally more than `1 lac, impugned order cancelling the exemption was passed. It was stated that if cost of pipe fittings, girder, switch, starter was added, the value would be `1,11,239/- i.e. more than `1 lac. 3. Challenging the impugned order, contention raised in the petition is that cost of girder, pipe fittings etc. was not part of cost of machinery and once exemption was granted to the petitioner by taking into account the cost of machinery furnished by the petitioner alongwith relevant documents, it was unfair to cancel the same merely on the ground that the cost was marginally higher than `1 lac. 4. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 12.7.1988, operation of the impugned order was stayed. The stay has been operative for the last 23 years. 5. Admittedly, the cost of machinery was less than `1 lac which was within the permissible limit of the policy and on that basis, the petitioner was granted exemption. Cancellation thereof having remained in abeyance for 23 years, it will not be fair to give effect to cancellation at this stage, even if two views may be possible on valuation. 6. Accordingly, we allow this petition and set aside the impugned order. 2 C.W.P. No.5695 of 1988 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE July 14, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3