Civil Writ Petitions No.4984 of 2011 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petitions No.4984 of 2011 Date of decision: 18.3.2011 M/s Arunesh Industries Pvt. Ltd. ...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. Rajiv Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) This petition seeks quashing of order dated 21.4.2005 passed by the General Manager, District Industries Centre under Section 28A(8)(ii) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 cancelling eligibility certificate granted to the petitioner for tax benefits under the said rules. Reason for cancellation of the said certificate is that the unit of the petitioner remained non functional for more than six months in violation of statutory requirement for exemption. Challenge has also been laid to the appellate order dated 14.9.2007 affirming the finding that the petitioner discontinued its business for more than six months. The said finding, inter-alia, is based on the spot inspection. Further challenge is to the proceedings for recovery as a consequence of impugned orders. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is clear from the record that the impugned order of cancellation of eligibility certificate was passed six years ago and Civil Writ Petitions No.4984 of 2011 -2- **** became final on dismissal of appeal more than three years ago. The petitioner thereafter filed appeal before the Tribunal which was admittedly not maintainable and was dismissed by the Tribunal about two years back. Only ground taken for explaining the delay in filing this petition is that the petitioner was not aware that such order had been passed by the Tribunal. This submission cannot be accepted. Cause of action accrued to the petitioner when its appeal was dismissed on 14.9.2007. There was no reason to file appeal before the Tribunal when such an appeal was not provided for. Moreover, if plea of the petitioner is that it had a valid reason for not appearing before the appellate authority, such a plea should have been put forward before the appellate authority itself, in the first instance. No ground is, thus, made out for interference by this Court. Dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge March 18,2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge