TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The said certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner by District Level Committee, constituted under notification dated October 16, 1986, issued by State Government. Petitioner has actually enjoyed the said benefit for the period stated in the eligibility certificate. The said eligibility certificate was cancelled by State Level Committee with retrospective effect vide its order dated April 27, 1989. 3.. The said order of cancellation of petitioner s eligibility certificate by State Level Committee, was, subject-matter of challenge in W.P. No. 719 of 1989. The said petition has now been disposed of with certain directions. The judgment of petitioner s earlier petition is reported in [1996] 102 STC 233 (Kitchen Aid v. General Manager ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pervise and, if there is any irregularity, or, breach of the rule, or, regulation, the committee is competent and empowered to set aside and quash the order passed by District Level Committee. Their contention is, that looking to the nature of business, carried on by the petitioner, the District Industries Centre should not have granted the eligibility certificate to the petitioner, as, it is not engaged in manufacturing process. They have also made a mention with regard to an opinion sought by State Government from the law department. 6.. The delay in passing the order has been attributed to delaying and protracting attitude of the petitioner. According to the respondents, as per earlier order, passed by this Court, petitioner had been g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gment, petitioner had challenged cancellation of eligibility certificate with retrospective effect. Even though, the petitioner had also questioned with regard to competence of respondents to cancel the same with retrospective effect, but, perusal of the judgment shows that petition was allowed, mainly, on the ground that order of cancellation of the certificate was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, on the principles of natural justice, the impugned order was directed to be quashed in the said petition. 12.. Petitioner, then, placed reliance on a judgment reported in [1996] 102 STC 483 (K.P. Enterprises v. Divisional Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Raipur), wherein, the Division Bench was consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed herewith are dismissed except that the effectivity of withdrawal of eligibility certificate shall be from the date of issue of order and not from retrospective effect. There shall be no orders as to costs. Security, if any shall be refunded to the petitioner. 13.. Thus the Division Bench is of the clear view that in any case, while cancelling the eligibility certificate, the same cannot be done with retrospective date. In fact, the said judgment clinches the issue involved in this petition. 14.. Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Government Advocate for respondents, submitted, that this matter should be remitted to the State Level Committee once again for decision in accordance with law and all questions posed and opposed by the parties sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
