(1.) THESE are seven petitions, C. W. P. Nos. 5365, 5370 to 5373, 6526 and 6527 of 1988 which are being disposed of by a common order.
(2.) UNDER the provisions of rule 17a of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975, payment of tax payable by industrial units can be deferred provided they are eligible for such a concession. Rule 17b defines what is an eligible industrial unit. For the purposes of these cases the eligible industrial unit means a new industrial unit which has made investment of Rs. 5 lakhs or more in the plant and machinery or employs not less than 10 persons. The petitioners herein claim that they were eligible industrial units and in accordance with the aforesaid Rules applied for an eligibility certificate, on the strength of which payment of tax can be deferred. Under the Rules, a "state Level Committee" has been set up which comprises of Additional Director of Industries, Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner of the district concerned and General Manager, District Industries Centre of the district concerned, as constituted by the State Government for six districts each. The State Level Committee examined the cases of the respective petitioners and vide its report dated April 26, 1988, rejected the claim of the petitioners and the District Industries Centre in turn communicated the result to the petitioners.
(3.) 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 17b (b) has not been correctly appreciated by the State Level Committee. There are two prerequisites 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 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. Secondly, we are satisfied that for such an important function the State Level Committee should not remain unadvised by not affording the applicants an opportunity of being heard while their cases are being judged. The committee making decisions in their chambers, unassisted and without obtaining explanations from the party concerned, can defeat the very purpose for which rule 17a has been brought about by the State. Thus, in these circumstances we have to require the State Level Committee to reconsider the cases of the petitioners in accordance with law. The report of the State Level Committee in so far as it relates to the petitioners cannot be held to be valid and we declare it so.