IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision 19.4.2011 (i) CWP No. 7216 of 1989 M.L.Rice Mills Dabwali Road ……Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and ors …Respondents (ii) CWP No. 178 of 1990 Bhalley Ram Rice and General Mills ……..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and ors ….Respondents (iii) CWP No. 4920 of 1990 Jai Bharat Rice Mills …….Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and ors ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: - Mr. Ankit Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Poonia, Addl. AG, Haryana. Hemant Gupta, J This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 7216 of 1989, 178 of 1990 and 4920 of 1990, wherein identical question of fact in respect of eligibility of the petitioner on the interpretation of Rule 17- B(b)(1)(viii) of Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 is the subject matter of consideration. The aforesaid Rule as per the petitioner read as under: - CWP No. 7216 of 1989 17B (a) xxx (b) “eligible industrial unit” means a new industrial unit, which- (1) has taken the following effective steps namely: - xxx xxx xxx (viii) has not less than 5 lakh investment in the plant and machinery or employs not less than ten persons. The claim of the petitioner for the eligibility certificate was declined so as to avail deferment of the sales tax on the ground that twin conditions of the number of employees and extent of investment is not satisfied by the petitioner. The writ petition challenging the said decision of the State Government came up for hearing before this Court on 30.5.1989 and this Court passed the following orders: - Notice of motion for 6.6.1989. Dasti process. The petitioner will keep filing their sales tax returns in accordance with law but the recovery of tax from it from the date they made the application for grant of eligibility certificate till further orders, shall remain deferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in CWP No. 5365 of 1988 decided on 5.10.1988, M/s Shiv Shakti Rice Mills vs. The State of Haryana and another, wherein this Court, on the basis of the Rule produced before the Court, returned a finding that either of the two conditions is required to be fulfilled. It has been held to the following effect: - We have gone through the report of the State Level committee. We have gathered the impression that the true import of sub-clause (viii) of Clause (1) of Rule 17(b) has not been correctly appreciated by the State Level Committee. There are two pre-requisites for obtaining an eligibility certificate. Either the investment should be of Rs. 5 lakhs or more in the plant and machinery, or the Unit, even though of lesser investment, may be employing not less than 10 persons. The Committee seemingly was under the impression that 2 CWP No. 7216 of 1989 both these conditions had to be satisfied at one and the same time. This, in our view is not so; on the satisfaction of either of the two conditions, the petitioners would be eligible to get eligibility certificates. It is stated in the written statement that the original notification is in Hindi, where the word is “aur” i.e. and but in English translation the word used is “or” by mistake. It is thus argued that the Division Bench judgment in M/s Shiv Shakti Rice Mills case (supra) has proceeded on wrong reading of the Rule, which mistake could not be pointed out by the State Government at the time of hearing of the aforesaid writ petition. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that even the English translation was corrected when corrigendum was published in the State Government Gazette on September 1, 1989 so as to substitute word “or’ in English notification with the word ”and”. The later single Bench judgment has noticed the corrigendum but allowed the writ petition on the basis of directions issued earlier and that there was no plea that there is mistake in the notification raised. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon judgment reported as 91 (1993) STC 528, Siri Ram Rice Mills vs. State of Haryana and another, wherein the effect of corrigendum was discussed and it was held that such corrigendum does not effect the claim of the petitioner. The Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 were modified vide the notification published on 9.5.1986 when Rule 17-A to Rule 17- R were inserted in the Rules. Subsequently, Rule 28-A was inserted w.e.f. 17.5.1989 excluding certain class of industries from exemption and deferment of the sales tax as notified on 9.5.1986. The entire 3 CWP No. 7216 of 1989 dispute in the writ petition is in respect of the language of sub-clause (viii) of Clause (1) of Rule 17(B)(b). We have perused the gazette notifications published. The original notification is in Hindi published from pages 375 to 417. It uses the word “aur” i.e “and” whereas the authorized English translation from pages 418 to 452, uses the word “OR”. The English version published in the Gazette is a translated version which is not in tune with the original notification. The stand of the State Government is that in fact the Rule notified was that unit has to comply with the twin conditions and not either of them. Therefore, the English translation is not the correct translation and cannot be relied upon by the petitioner. The said mistake stands corrected when corrigendum to correct the mistake was published and the word “or” is substituted by word “and”. In view of the said fact, the mistake is apparent and the said mistake stands corrected as well. The judgment in later single Bench is on its own facts in view of the earlier directions of the Division Bench. The said order does not and cannot nullify the correction of the mistake in the Rules. Even otherwise, by virtue of the interim order, the petitioner has availed deferment of tax for a period of more than 21 years. Though, the Rule contemplated maximum period of deferment of tax as 9 years. Therefore, the petitioner has been able to avail deferment of tax on the strength of the interim orders passed by this Court though it could not be done directly under the Rules. In view of the said fact, we do not find any merit in the present writ petitions. Dismissed. 4 CWP No. 7216 of 1989 (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 19.4.2010 (A.N.JINDAL) Preeti JUDGE 5