R. BALIA, J. - (1.) THE petition raises a very short issue. Undisputed facts which have given rise to this petition are that the petitioner set up an industrial undertaking in the industrial backward area of Sumerpur; firstly as stone cutting and polishing industry and thereafter for manufacture and sale of edible oil and oil-cakes and thereafter the petitioner further carried out expansion by diversifying its activities to pulses and dals, etc. In respect of stone cutting and polishing unit the petitioner was granted eligibility certificate under the Rajasthan Sale Tax Incentive Scheme, 1987 on December 1, 1987. In respect of edible oil industry also eligibility certificate was issued on December 1, 1987, Eligibility certificate in respect of diversified project was granted on April 5, 1989. During the subsistence of the aforesaid eligibility certificate, the respondent No. 3 who is the assessing authority for the petitioner, issued notice annexure 4 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the eligibility certificate issued in its favour be not cancelled and turnover be subjected to tax. This notice is annexure 4. A subsequent notice annexure 5 was also issued. THE petitioner submitted reply to these notices also. THE petitioner challenged the jurisdiction to issue notices annexures 4 and 5.
(2.) A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The stand taken by the respondent No. 3 is that in his opinion the petitioner is not entitled to get the eligibility certificate for availing the facility of exemption from payment of tax under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1987 and the same has wrongly been sanctioned by the District Level Screening Committee, and the eligibility certificate has wrongly been issued by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Pali. Consequently, the Commercial Taxes Officer, Pali, has no other alternative except to issue show cause notices calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the eligibility certificate dated December 1, 1987 may not be cancelled and tax imposed on the sales of polished stones over which the petitioner has claimed tax exemption under the said Sales Tax Incentive Scheme after December 1, 1987. Under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1987, the jurisdiction to determine whether an industrial unit is eligible for sales tax exemption or not has been conferred on the Screening Committee of the State level or the District level depending upon the fact that whether the unit claiming exemption is a large scale unit or medium and small-scale unit. In the present case, the sanction for grant of eligibility certificate was made by District Level Screening Committee. The assessing authority has no jurisdiction to sit upon the jurisdiction of Screening Committee about the eligibility of a unit to the exemption under the scheme. Learned counsel invited my attention to para 9 of the incentive scheme. The para 9 of the scheme deals with the breach of condition caused by the beneficiary of the holder of eligibility certificate. The present is not a case where any breach of condition on the part of the petitioner-assessee has been alleged. What has been alleged by the assessing authority in his return is that District Level Screening Committee has wrongly sanctioned the eligibility certificate to the petitioner and, therefore, he intends to withdraw the exemption. This, in my view, the assessing authority had no jurisdiction to do. If he was aggrieved that a sanction has wrongly been issued in favour of the petitioner which is contrary to the scheme, his option was to have approached the District Level Screening Committee, who if satisfied with the complaint of the Commercial Taxes Officer, could have taken appropriate proceedings by giving notice to the petitioner, if it was so permitted under the scheme. However, the Commercial Taxes Officer, respondent No. 3, could not have recourse to confer upon himself the jurisdiction to cancel the eligibility certificate granted to the petitioner on his opinion that it was wrongly granted. Therefore, issuance of notice annexure 4 was wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Notice annexure 5 which is only a follow up notice, must also fail for the same reason. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, the notices annexures 4 and 5 are quashed. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after filing of the writ petition, District Level Screening Committee has partially cancelled the eligibility certificate issued in favour of the petitioner for which he is prosecuting separate remedy by way of filing independent writ petition. Any observations made in this writ petition will not affect the merit of the said case in any manner nor this will affect any proceedings which have been taken in pursuance of the cancellation of the eligibility certificate by the District Level Screening Committee subject to any order that may be passed by this Court in the writ petition filed by the petitioner in that regard. Petition allowed. .;