STATE OF HARYANA Vs. HARYANA ORGANICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of L.P.A. No. 412 of 2003, arising out of CWP No. 18240 of 1997 and L.P.A. No 413 of 2003, arising out of CWP No. 3455 of 1998. Both these Letters Patent Appeals have been filed by State of Haryana challenging a common judgment, dated 22.10.2002, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, allowing the afore mentioned writ petitions filed by the respondents, involving similar questions of law and fact. In view of same judgment, dated 22.10.2002, being under challenge in both the appeals, we dispose of both the appeals by a common judgement. However, for the facility of reference, the facts are taken from L.P.A. No. 412 of 2003.

(2.) THE brief facts are that both the present respondents manufacture Ethyl Alcohol from Molasses. They applied for Eligibility Certificate for exemption of Sales Tax under rule 28-A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules 1975 (for short the 'Rules'). However their claims for exemption were rejected by the authorities, at various levels on different dates, on the ground that their Units fell within the scope of Entry 10 of negative list contained in Haryana Government Notification dated 11.02.1994 (Annexure P- 4-B). Feeling aggrieved, the respondents herein filed writ petitions, which have been allowed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court, leading to filing of the present appeals by the State of Haryana. Thus the sole question, which arose for the consideration of learned single Judge and now we are required to examine in these appeals is :-

(3.) ON the question as to whether "Ethanol (Ethyl Alcohol) based industries" includes industries manufacturing Ethanol or Ethyl Alcohol, like the respondents herein, learned single Judge, answering the question in the negative, held that it refers to only industries which are 'based' on Ethanol or Ethyl Alcohol, which is a stage subsequent to the manufacture of Ethanol or Ethyl Alcohol. Entry was held to refer to only such industries which consume Ethyl Alcohol as an input and not industries which manufacture Ethyl Alcohol. It was further held that if the interpretation sought to be placed by present appellant - State of Haryana, to the contrary, is accepted it would render the word 'based' in the entry as totally redundant, which would be contrary to the well settled principles of interpretation. The learned single Judge relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose [reported as 1953 SCR 1], where in it was held that it is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite surplusage, if they can have appropriate application in circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of the statute.