(1.) PRAYER made in this petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned orders, Annexures P-3 and P-5, and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue to the petitioner Elegibility Certificate of Exemption in accordance with section 13-B of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Rule 28-a of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and for restraining the respondents from recovering sales tax from the petitioner.
(2.) STATE of Haryana had announced incentives to encourage small scale industries, to promote industrialisation and to create employment in the entire State of Haryana. Under the Scheme, small scale industries can be exempted from payment of sales tax under the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Petitioner set up a plant for manufacturing PVC Pipes in Village Mathana, Tehsil and District Kurukshetra, which is a backward area. As per averments made, petitioner started its commercial production of PVC pipes on 14. 3. 1994. On 8. 4. 1994. Directorate of Industries, Haryana issued a certificate to the effect that the date of commencement of commercial production of the petitioner is 14. 3. 1994. Application for exemption from payment of sales tax could be made within 90 days of the commencement of commercial production. Petitioner made an application on 12. 5. 1994 to the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Kurukshetra, for exemption from payment of tax. The application was rejected by the Lower Level Screening Committee on 8. 12. 1994, vide order Annexure P. 3, on the ground that it had been filed beyond the period of 90 days of the date of going into commercial production. Claim of the petitioner that it had started production on 14. 3. 1994 was not accepted. It was found that the petitioner had gone into commercial production prior to 15. 12. 1993. Against the order of the Lower Level Screening Committee, petitioner filed an appeal before the Higher Level Screening Committee.
(3.) AFTER hearing counsel for the parties, we find substance in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner. Higher Level Screening Committee acts as a quasi judicial authority. A perusal of its order would show that the same is bereft of any reasons in support of its decision. It has been held in innumerable decisions by the Supreme Court of India as well as various High Courts that a quasi judicial authority is required to pass a speaking order, recording its reasons in support thereof. Failure to do so vitiates the order, being against the principles of natural justice. Such orders cannot stand the test of scrutiny in any further proceedings available to the party concerned. Such orders are further required to be communicated to the concerned party. In this case, as observed earlier, Higher Level Screening Committee passed the order, Annexure P-5, without recording its reasons.