M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated March 12, 2003 (P 1), withdrawing the eligibility certificate issued for sales tax exemption in favour of the petitioner -company, pursuant to the decision taken by the Lower Level Screening Committee, Hisar (for brevity, "the LLSC"), in its meeting held on January 27, 2003 as well as order dated April 28, 2006 (P 5), conveying the decision of the Higher Level Screening Committee (for brevity, "the HLSC") taken in its 92nd meeting held on February 16, 2006, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner -company has been dismissed. Still further it has been prayed that consequential proceedings may also be quashed and direction be issued to the Excise and Taxation Officer -cum -Assessing Authority, Hisar -respondent No. 5 not to recover the consequential additional demand from the petitioner -company.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner -company is having its factory at Hisar. It has been registered under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It is claimed that the petitioner -company had set up its plant by incurring total cost of Rs. 127.06 lacs. Sales tax exemption up to a ceiling of Rs. 1,65,33,500 for nine years with effect from September 18, 1993 to September 17, 2002 was granted in its favour. However, the unit of the petitioner -company remained in production up to March 31, 1998 and it could avail benefit of sales tax exemption to the tune of Rs. 16,91,198 as against Rs. 1,65,33,500 allowed by the eligibility certificate. The petitioner -company has been declared as a sick industrial unit within the meaning of Rule 28A(2)(e) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (for brevity, "the Rules") read with Section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and the Haryana Financial Corporation has been appointed as operating agency to work out revival scheme for the petitioner -company. In these circumstances, the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Hisar -respondent No. 4 referred the case of the petitioner -company to "the LLSC" and a notice dated June 8, 2001 was issued asking the petitioner -company to show cause as to why the eligibility certificate for sales tax exemption be not withdrawn. On January 27, 2003, after affording personal hearing, "the LLSC" while taking into consideration the fact that the unit of the petitioner -company remained closed for more than six months, decided to withdraw the eligibility certificate for sales tax exemption issued in favour of the petitioner -company (P 1). On March 31, 2003, respondent No. 4 passed an order directing the petitioner -company to deposit a sum of Rs. 16,91,198, which was availed as exemption during the years 1993 -94 to 2000 -01. The exemption certificate has been withdrawn from the first day of its validity under the provisions of Rule 28A(8)(b) of the Rules, which postulate that when the eligibility certificate is withdrawn, the exemption/entitlement shall be deemed to have been withdrawn from the first day of its validity and the unit shall be liable to payment of tax, interest or penalty as if no exemption certificate has ever been granted to it (P 2). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner -company filed an appeal dated April 8, 2003, under Rule 28A(5)(f) of the Rules before "the HLSC" asserting that under Rule 28A(8)(a) of the Rules, the eligibility certificate of a unit can be withdrawn only during the currency of the eligibility certificate (P3). On June 9, 2003, during the pendency of the appeal, the Excise and Taxation Officer -cum -Assessing Authority, Hisar -respondent No. 5 issued a demand notice, requiring the petitioner -company to pay an amount of Rs. 16,91,198 on or before July 8, 2003 (P 4). On February 16, 2006, 92nd meeting of "the HLSC" was held, wherein it took the following decision dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner -company: Sh. G.S. Aggarwal, Advocate appeared before the committee and explained that discontinuation of business since 2000 was beyond the control of the appellant. This was HFC financed unit. BIFR has declared this unit sick. HTFC was deputed to work out the study of rehabilitation of the unit and supplied to BIFR. The company could not have taken up any step to restart the production till finalisation of the rehabilitation proposal by the operating agency. The case does not fall under the provisions of sick unit. Keeping in view the above report the committee decided to dismiss the appeal of the unit.
(3.) THE aforementioned decision of "the HLSC" has been communicated to the petitioner -company vide letter dated April 28, 2006 (P 5), which is subject -matter of challenge in the instant petition.;