Civil Writ Petition No.1641 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1641 of 2000 Date of decision: 22.9.2010 Jai Bhole Shanker Rice Mill ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gagandeep Singh Wasu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J ( Oral) 1. In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 20.12.1999 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent no.2 under the provisions of Rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). 2. Case of the petitioner is it set up a rice mill and got the same registered with the Department of Industries as small scale industrial unit under the Rural Industrial Scheme on provisional basis on 5.12.1996. The unit came into production on 18.10.1997. The petitioner applied for eligibility certificate under Rule 28A of the Rules for grant of benefit for exemption from sales/purchase tax on 6.1.1998. The application was rejected by the Lower Level Screening Civil Writ Petition No.1641 of 2000 -2- Committee on the ground that unit of the petitioner falls in the negative list which order was affirmed on appeal. The said decision was erroneous as the petitioner had already made investment before the issuance of the list and in its case, matter was governed by Rule 28A of the Rules. 3. The petition has been contested on behalf of the State on the ground that rice mill of the petitioner falls in the negative list under Rule 28A as well as 28B of the Rules as per notifications dated 16.12.1996 and 22.8.1997. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The only contention which has been raised on behalf of the petitioner is that petitioner had formed a partnership firm on 4.10.1996 and got the same registered as industrial unit on 5.12.1996 which before notification of negative list. 6. The submission cannot be accepted. Mere fact that the petitioner formed partnership firm was not enough for eligibility for the concession. Admittedly, production of the petitioner started on 18.10.1997. Its building was not completed by 31.7.1997 as required. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to dispute that the rice mill falls in the negative list and the petitioner was ineligible for exemption. Once it is so, we are unable to find any error in the view taken in the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge September 22,2010 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge