Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2015 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 81 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURTConstitutional validity of Notification - retrospective change in the meaning of eligible industrial unit" regarding "unit in pipeline" - change in incentive scheme Notification ultra vires of Article 14 of Constitution of India or not Held that:- Power to enact rules shall include power to enact them retrospectively from the date on which policy for incentives to industry is announced by the State Government and for this purpose, rules 28A, B, C of the Rules shall have retrospective effect from April 1, 1988, August 1, 1997 and November 15, 1999, respectively - Thus, a rule, notified to achieve objects of the policy granting incentives to industry, can be notified retrospectively, thereby negating the argument raised by counsel for the petitioner that the Act does not empower amendment of rules, with retrospective effect - thus, challenge to the retrospectivity of definition of "units in pipeline", on the ground of want of statutory sanction is rejected. Notification passed by High Level Screening Committee, constituted under rule 28C of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 declining to treat the petitioner as a "unit in pipeline" Whether the definition of "units in pipeline" takes away any right that may have vested in the petitioner under rule 28, before introduction of sub-clause (o) Held that:- The definition of "eligible industrial unit", as enacted before the amendment required an industrial unit, including "units in pipeline" to be registered and holding a registration certificate - The amendment enacted by sub-rule (o) merely reiterates this part of the original provision and says nothing more - The petitioner, was not registered with any Department of the Government before April 30, 2000 - the petitioner applied for registration with the Department of Industries pursuant to an application made on May 17, 2000 and was granted a provisional registration certificate on May 24, 2000, i.e., after April 30, 2000, the cut-off date - The petitioner applied for registration as a unit on May 17, 2000 and was registered on May 24, 2000, thereby failing to fulfil the first condition. The petitioner purchased land on April 3, 1996, obtained a certificate for change of land use on August 18, 1997 but did not take any steps to set up an industrial unit from August 18, 1997 to April 30, 2000 - all formalities relating to setting up of the unit, supply of machinery, etc., were set into motion after the cutoff date of April 30, 2000 - The mere fact that the petitioner may have gone into commercial production on March 30, 2002 and made its first sale on March 30, 2002, would not confer any benefit on the petitioner as it does not fall within the definition of "units in pipeline" - The right to claim exemption as "units in pipeline" as on April 30, 2000, required the petitioner to comply with the four conditions set out in the definition of "units in pipeline" - The power to define "units in pipeline" with retrospective effect having been affirmed and as the petitioner as per his own showing not being registered with any Department as on April 30, 2000, the notification cannot be said to operate to the prejudice of the petitioner - The order passed by the Higher Level Screening Committee is in consonance with the facts of the case as the petitioner failed to establish its credential as a "unit in pipeline" as on April 30, 2000 - the petitioner is not entitled to be treated as a "unit in pipeline" Decided against petitioner.
|