TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssify the benefit of investment up to the date of amendment, putting the unit in the negative list. Appeal allowed. - C.W.P. No. 14236 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 9-12-2008 - ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND MITTAL L.N. , JJ. JUDGMENT:- The judgment of the court was delivered by ADARSH KUMAR GOELJ. This petition seeks quashing of order dated September 26, 2007 passed by the Lower Level Screening Committee (LLSC), constituted under the provisions of rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (for short, the Rules ), as affirmed by the Higher Level Screening Committee (HLSC) vide order dated July 4, 2008. Case of the petitioner is that it is a company under the Companies Act, 1956. The State of Haryana declared its Industrial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, continued to operate in the field. It may be true that the appellants altered their position only from August, 1996, but it has neither been denied nor disputed that during the relevant period, namely, August, 1996 to December 16, 1996 not only they have invested huge amounts but also the authorities of the State sanctioned benefits, granted permissions. Parties had also taken other steps which could be taken only for the purpose of setting up of a new industrial unit. An entrepreneur who sets up an industry in a backward area, unless otherwise prohibited, is entitled to alter his position pursuant to or in furtherance of the promises or representations made by the State. The State accepted that equity operated in favour of the en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t prior thereto. By reason of Note 2, certain rights were conferred. Although there lies a distinction between vested rights and accrued rights as by reason of a delegated legislation, a right cannot be taken away. The amendments carried out in 1996 as also the subsequent amendments made prior to 2001, could not, thus, have taken away the rights of the appellant with retrospective effect. With the above observations, the matter was remanded to the Director of Industries, to consider it afresh. After considering the matter, the impugned order was passed. Therein, recommendation was made for grant of eligibility certificate to the extent of Rs. 94,48,911 for a period of nine years, i.e., from March 29, 1997 to March 28, 2006. The said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16, 1996, restricting the eligibility of the petitioner up to December 16, 1996 cannot be interfered with. The question for consideration is, whether the petitioner having been treated to be eligible, could be denied the benefit of investment after the date of unit having been put in the negative list. Rule 28A, i.e., sub-rule (2)(f) of rule 28A is reproduced below: (f) 'eligible industrial unit' means: (i) a new industrial unit or expansion or diversification of the existing unit, which (I) has obtained certificate of registration under the Act; (II) is not a public sector undertaking where the Central Government held 51 per cent or more shares; (III) is not availing incentive of interest-free loan from the In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
