J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) The petitioner is a limited company end a new industrial unit within the meaning of Haryana General Sales Tax (First Amendment) Rules, 1986, and is, thus, eligible for the purpose of deferment of payment of tax payable under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act and the Rules (hereinafter called the Act and the Rules). The petitioner company came into existence in January, 1986, and started production the same year. It is engaged in extraction of oil from oil seeds and oil cakes and rice bran, having a manufacturing capacity of 150 tonnes of oil per day from rice bran and 225 tonnes of oil from oil cakes. It is averred that the State of Haryana by a notification dated 6th May, 1986, amended the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975, and introduced new rules for the purpose of deferment of payment of tax to be enjoyed by eligible industrial units with a view to giving an incentive to new industrial units. According to Schedule I attached to the amending Rules, the period of deferment which is admissible is five to nine years according to categories mentioned therein In accordance with the schedule, the admissibility of the petitioner for deferment is to the extent of 60% of fixed assets or Rs. 3 crores. whichever is less the period of deferment being seven years from the date of grant of first entitlement certificate.
(2.) The petitioner being an eligible industrial unit applied to the competent authority vide copy Annexure PI dated 8th June, 1987 under rule 17-D of the Rules for the grant of eligibility certificate and firm voucher. According to the procedure prescribed under the Rules, the Industrial Centre Kamal forwarded the application to the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner Kamal in order to get the facts mentioned therein verified from the appropriate assessing authority which is the Deputy Ex-case and Taxation Commissioner. However, the matter was not decided by the respondent-authorities. On the contrary, the assessing authority on 20th August, 19S7, vide memo Annexure P4, ordered the petitioner to deposit the tax for the quarter ending 30th June, 1917 by 7th September, 1987, against which the petitioner filed a writ petition (Civil Writ Petition No. 5813'87 in this Court seeking a mandamus that the petitioner was entitled to get the eligibility certificate for the purpose of deferment of sales tax on the ground of being a new industrial unit under the Act and the Rules. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 2nd December, 1987 with the following observations:- "Learned counsel for the State states at the bar that the necessary application for issue of eligibility certificate be filed in the proper form within 15 days and after the filing of the application in proper form the Department will dispose them of within three months thereof. Further proceedings in pursuance of the notice shall continue to remain stayed till the disposal of the application. The petition, r will have to complete all the formalities and cooperate in disposal of the application." In spite of this order, the respondents did not dispose of the application within three months and sought extension of time which was allowed. The matter was ultimately decided by them on 9th June, 1988 (Copy of letter annexure P 5) whereby the petitioner was allowed deferment of tux payment for the period 1988-89 to 1994-95, against which the present writ petition has been filed. The main grievance of the petitioner is that it should have been allowed the deferment from the date of the application the in 8th June, 1987), i.e., for the year 1987-88 to 1993-94 instead of for the period 1988-89 to 1994-95.
(3.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the delay in deciding the application for issuance of the eligibility certificate should not be to the detriment of the petitioner. It is canvassed that this benefit was given to new industrial units under rule 17-A of the Rules, and, therefore, the order Annexure P 5 was wrong and illegal to that extent. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that rule 17-F provides for a procedure for execution of agreement/mortgage deed and issue of entitlement certificates. Rule 171 specifically provides that no eligible industrial unit shall have any right to claim deferment of payment of tax merely by virtue of the fact that it has fulfilled on its part the prescribed conditions and that the deferment of payment of tax will become admissible only after the issue of the Eligibility Certificate and the voucher by the Implementing Agency and the Entitlement Certificate by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner concerned and further that the unit has complied with the stipulations/conditions of the Eligibility Certificate. Thus, the main argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the deferment of tax payment will be admissible only after the issue of the Eligibility Certificate, and since the petitioner has not complied with the requirements as given in Annexure P 5 it is not entitled to the deferment of tax-payment for the period prior thereto It is claimed that the deferment, if any, was be prospective in character, and not retrospective.;