STATE OF HARYANA Vs. ANIL PESTICIDES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 5th August 2002, passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.18436 of 2001. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the State of Haryana, the appellant herein, affirming the decision of the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Industries Department, holding that 'Monocrotophos (Technical)' and 'Dichlorvos (Technical)', being manufactured by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "Dealer") are "chemicals" and not "pesticides" within the meaning of Entry 43 of the negative list as contained in Schedule III to the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (for short "the Rules").

(2.) The State of Haryana announced an industrial policy for the period 1st April 1988 to 31st March 1997, wherein incentive by way of sales tax exemption was to be given for the industries set up in backward areas of the State. During the year 1994-95, the Dealer set up an industrial unit at village Badgodam, District Panchkula, a backward area, for manufacturing, amongst others, 'Monocrotophos (Technical)' and 'Dichlorvos (Technical)'. It claimed sales tax exemption in terms of the said industrial policy and applied for grant of an Eligibility Certificate under Rule 28A of the Rules.

(3.) On or about 3rd January 1996, a notice was given as regards the intention of the State to amend Rules in respect whereof a draft was circulated for information of persons likely to be affected thereby so as to enable them to file objections and suggestions thereto. Ultimately, amendments in terms of the said draft Rules were notified on 16th December 1996, by the Haryana General Sales Tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 1996 and certain more items were included in Schedule III. One of the items so 3 included in the list was Item No.43--"Pesticides manufacturing and Formulations."