AMBA PLASTIC INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition praying for quashing of order dated 28.2.2002 ( Annexurte P-4) passed by Lower Level Screening Committee and order dated 16.2.2006 ( Annexure P-7) passed by the Higher Level Screening Committee in an appeal against the order passed by the Lower Level Screening Committee. Briefly, the facts, as pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner was a registered dealer under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short 'the State Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short 'the Central Act'). The petitioner set up a unit for manufacturing of polythene bags. In terms of provisions of Rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (for short 'the Rules') the petitioner was granted eligibility certificate for availing benefit of exemption from payment of sales/purchase tax for manufacturing of polythene bags. The quantum of benefit was determined at Rs. 3.55 lacs and the eligibility certificate so granted to the petitioner was valid for a period of seven years from April 19, 1994 to April 18, 2001. It is, further, submitted that on 15.6.1999, the State of Haryana issued a notification imposing complete ban on use of all kinds of Plastic Handbags by businessmen, wholesalers and retailers throughout the State. As a result of the ban imposed, the petitioner had no market to sell its products accordingly, it had no option but to close down the unit and surrender its Sales Tax Registration Certificate.

(2.) The petitioner was served with notice dated September 18, 2001 under Sub Rule 8 (a) (ii) of Rule 28-A of the Rules, to show cause as to why the eligibility certificate granted to the petitioner be not withdrawn on the ground that the unit of the petitioner remained closed for more than six months during the exemption period.

(3.) In the meeting of the Lower Level Screening committee, held on January 4, 2002 and February 28, 2002, it was decided to withdraw the eligibility certificate for violation of the provisions of Sub Rule 8 (a) (ii) of Rule 28-A of the Rules. Aggrieved against the order of Lower Level Screening Committee, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Higher Level Screening Committee, raising the plea that the reason for closure of the unit was beyond his control as the unit had to be closed down because of ban imposed by the State itself on use of polythene bags. However, the Higher Level Screening Committee did not find any merit in the plea raised by the petitioner and rejected the same. This is how the petitioner is before this Court.