MAURYA TIMBERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226/227 for quashing the order passed by the Revisional Authority under Section 41 (3) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act')and the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal passed on 1. 2. 1995.

(2.) THE petitioner was a small scale Industrial Unit and was registered as a partnership firm under the Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act. Registration Certificate under the Act had been obtained in the year 1982, vide No. JAG/iii/243, dated 28. 12. 1982 and certificate under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, vide No. JAG/cst/245 dated 28. 12. 1982. The petitioner, in order to diversify its activities, set up a new diversified unit for the production of Plywood, Ply board, Wooden panel, Flush doors, Windows, ventilators etc. Production of the new items in the new diversified unit commenced on 20. 6. 1989. The petitioner with a view to getting the benefit of tax exemption under Section 13b of the Act made An application for the grant of eligibility certificate which was issued by the relevant screening committee on 25. 1. 1990. The petitioner became eligible for purposes of exemption from payment of tax under the Act from 20. 6. 89 to 19. 6. 96. After the petitioner received the eligibility certificate for a period of 7 years as aforesaid, an application was made for the issuance of an exemption certificate before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner. Exemption Certificate was granted on 26. 5. 1990 entitling the petitioner to receive the benefit of exemption for the same period of 7 years for which the eligibility certificate had been issued by the relevant screening committee. Quarterly returns were filed for the financial year 1989-90 and, for that year, assessment was made by the assessing authority, vide order dated 24. 8. 1992. The Assessing Authority gave benefit of exemption from tax in respect of sales declared by the new diversified unit at Rs. 10,15,332. Notional liability of Central Sales Tax @ 4% on the aforesaid total amount of Inter-State sales was worked out at Rs. 40,613/ -. This amount of tax being notional tax was treated as exempt from payment inasmuch as the petitioner had already obtained the eligibility certificate as well as exemption certificate. Under the eligibility certificate, tax to the extent of Rs. 3,08,102/- was specified as the limit of exemption available to the petitioner for the period from 20. 6. 1989 to 19. 6. 1996. The Assessing Authority, after determining the notional tax amounting to Rs. 40,613/-, declared the assessee as an exempt unit from the payment of that amount of tax. The balance entitlement of Rs. 2,67,488/- was carried forward to the next year. Assessment of the existing unit had also been made by the assessing authority vide order dated 13. 12. 1991 and, in that order also, the turnover of Rs. 10,15,332/- relating to the new diversified unit was excluded from the gross turnover of the existing unit and the balance turnover was subjected to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. An amount of Rs. 75,647/- was held to be refundable to the petitioner under that assessment.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner is that the revisional authority had no powers to withdraw the benefit of exemption granted by the screening committee and also by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner. No power had been conferred on the revisional authority under Section 40 of the Act to revise either the eligibility certificate or the exemption certificate. The proper course was to get the two certificates modified or cancelled if the petitioner was found to have violated any condition of any of the two certificates. If the registration had not been obtained from the date of production, the relevant authority granting the certificate should have been moved for necessary action. Section 40 of the Act empowered the revisional authority to call for the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by, any assessing authority or appellate authority, other than the Tribunal, for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the legality or to propriety of any proceedings or of any order made therein. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revisional authority could call for the record of assessment but could not interfere with the order made by the relevant screening committee declaring the petitioner as eligible for the benefit of exemption from deduction of tax. Similarly, order passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner granting the exemption certificate to the petitioner could also not be revised as it was not part of the assessment nor was this order made by the assessing authority as such. Exemption certificate had been issued by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner under the relevant rules framed under Section 13b of the Act. Section 13b of the Act reads as under: