2008 (2) TMI 833 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Tax concessions under rule 28C of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules 1975 - eligible as unit in pipeline - Held that - In view of the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner has failed to establish on record that the petitioner-company fulfils condition No. 1 of annexure P-3 to the effect that the unit is registered with the Department of Industries for availing the tax concessions and therefore its application for grant of sales tax concession under the Rules 1975 treating the expanded unit of the petitioner as unit in pipeline has been rightly rejected. We find no ground to quash the impugned order annexure P-11 and thus the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for tax concessions under rule 28C of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975.
2. Requirement of registration with the Department of Industries, Haryana for availing tax benefits.
3. Validity of the rejection of the petitioner's application for tax benefits.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a private limited company engaged in manufacturing, sought tax concessions under rule 28C of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 for setting up an industrial unit. The company fulfilled various conditions, including land acquisition, financial assistance, and production commencement. However, the application was rejected based on the timing of obtaining Industrial Entrepreneurial Memorandum (IEM) after the cut-off date. The court found the rejection justified, emphasizing the need for compliance with all conditions for eligibility.

2. The key contention revolved around the requirement of registration with the Department of Industries, Haryana, for availing tax benefits. The petitioner argued exemption based on registration with the Ministry of Industry, Government of India. The court held that registration with the Ministry did not exempt the company from registering with the Department of Industries, Haryana. The court emphasized the specific conditions outlined in the public notice for availing tax concessions, dismissing the petitioner's argument as misconceived.

3. The rejection of the petitioner's application was challenged on the grounds of lack of document submission and misinterpretation of facts by the Director of Industries. The court noted discrepancies in the documentation provided by the petitioner, including the absence of registration certificates for the expanded unit. Ultimately, the court found the petitioner failed to establish compliance with the registration requirement, leading to the rightful rejection of the application. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the decision to reject the application for tax benefits.