NICE SPINNERS PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are being disposed of by a common order because all the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the decision taken by the Higher Level Screening Committee (for short, "hlsc") in its 58th meeting held on July 1, 1999. For the sake of convenience, we may notice the facts of C. W. P. No. 9005 of 2000 (M/s. Nice Spinners Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana ).

(2.) The petitioner is engaged in the manufacturing of yarn in its factory situated at Panipat. It is registered as a dealer under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short, "the 1973 Act") and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, "the 1956 Act" ). In 1996, its representative submitted an application under rule 28a (5) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (for short, "the 1975 Rules") for grant of eligibility certificate. The Lower Level Screening Committee (for short, "llsc") rejected the same on account of non-submission of change of land use certificate (for short, "clu certificate" ). The same was conveyed to it by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Panipat vide memo dated January 27, 1997 (annexure P6 ). The appeal filed by the petitioner against the decision of the LLSC is said to have been allowed by the HLSC in its 57th meeting held on March 19, 1999, but, later on, vide memo, annexure P7, the Director of Industries, Haryana, informed the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Panipat and the petitioner that the HLSC has rejected the appeal because of non-submission of permission/noc from the Town and Country Planning Department for change of land use. Similar communications were sent to other petitioners on the basis of the decisions taken by the LLSC and HLSC.

(3.) The petitioners have averred that the 1975 Rules do not contemplate production of CLU certificate as a condition precedent to the grant of eligibility certificate and, therefore, the decisions taken by the LLSC and the HLSC to reject their applications/appeals on that account should be declared illegal. They have further averred that the decision of the HLSC should be declared void because it did not have the jurisdiction to review the decision taken by it in its 57th meeting held on March 19, 1999 and in any case, no adverse decision could have been taken against them without giving notice and opportunity of hearing.