- (1.) THE petitioner has come up to this Court on a second round seeking quashing of impugned order dated December 10, 1997 - annexure No. 7 to the writ petition.
(2.) THE petitioner had come up earlier challenging the eligibility certificate, granted by the respondents only for a period of five days on the ground that the production in the petitioner-unit remained closed for a period of more than six months at a stretch. THE contention of the petitioner is that the unit continued the production on job basis. It is admitted by the petitioner that it made no production of its own during the period when it continued to work on job basis. The question for consideration then before this Court was whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case it could be said that the petitioner-unit remained closed at a stretch for more than six months, though job-work, admittedly, continued although. Appreciating such submission, the court took the view in the earlier judgment dated May 5, 1992 : " The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner appears to have force, in view of the averments made in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit as well as in the order passed by the Chairman, Noida itself. " Having found force in the contention of the petitioner, the court passed the following order : " In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated June 25, 1991 is quashed and the Chairman, Noida is directed to decide the application of the petitioner for grant of eligibility certificate in accordance with law and in view of the observations made above within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order of this Court". This is how the matter was laid before the Chairman, Noida after the judgment dated May 5, 1992 of this Court. The Chairman, Noida then passed the impugned order dated December 2, 1992 (annexure 7 to the writ petition) observing as under : " As per clarification issued by the Sales Tax Commissioner, doing job-work for other will not be considered to be manufacturing for sales. The honourable High Court in its order dated 5th May, 1992 has directed that the case of the party be reconsidered in view of the fact that the industrial unit had not discontinued production for a period exceeding six months at a stretch. . . . The party doing job work will not be covered under this provision as it does not make sale of the goods. In view of these provisions, the party's contention that it should qualify for sales tax exemption eligibility even though it had taken up job-work for over six months at stretch cannot be accepted. The unit did not manufacture for sales for a period April, 1985 to November, 1985 which is more than six months. In view of this the application for granting eligibility certificate beyond 31st March, 1985 is rejected. "
(3.) IN the judgment dated May 5, 1992 as reported in 1992 UPTC 1302 [shalimar INternational (P) Ltd. v. State of U. P. ] in the case of the petitioner itself, the court firmly accepted the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner having continued the job-work it cannot be said that the petitioner-unit had remained closed for more than six months at a stretch. IN view of this unequivocal finding it was not open for the Chairman, Noida to reiterate his view that the petitioner was not entitled to the eligibility certificate, as the unit had remained closed for more than six months at a stretch. If the Chairman, Noida was not satisfied with the correctness of the judgment dated May 5, 1992, then he would have pursued further remedy against that judgment in accordance with law. It is very unfortunate that instead of pursuing further remedy against that judgment, the Chairman, Noida took the view absolutely contrary to that expressed by this Court in the judgment dated May 5, 1992. Such action of the Chairman, Noida is deprecated. After the judgment dated May 5, 1992, the duty of the Chairman, Noida was simply to grant the eligibility certificate following the judgment of this Court. It is a clear case of contempt, though we do not want to proceed against the Chairman, Noida for taking any action for contempt of the court at his stage. But we hope and trust that the Chairman, Noida will earnestly carry out the judgment of the court, without any further provocation.;