Sales tax exemption for stone crushers depended on crusher-zone compliance; benefits issued contrary to the rules could be withdrawn.

Sales tax exemption for stone crushers was confined to units licensed under the Haryana Regulation and Control of Crushers Act, 1991 and installed in a notified crusher zone. Industries placed in Schedule III under rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 were excluded from eligibility, so a stone crusher located outside the crusher zone could not qualify for exemption or retain an eligibility certificate. An eligibility certificate issued contrary to the rules was liable to withdrawal by the screening committee, and estoppel could not be used to preserve a benefit that was inconsistent with the statutory scheme.

---

---

Issues: Whether a stone crusher, not located in a notified crusher zone, could claim sales tax exemption and retain eligibility certificate benefits despite being included in the negative list under the sales tax rules.

Analysis: The notification governing industrial incentives granted sales tax exemption only to stone crushers holding a licence under the Haryana Regulation and Control of Crushers Act, 1991, and only where the statutory precondition of installation in a crusher zone was satisfied. By contrast, the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 and rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 excluded industries in Schedule III from the category of eligible industrial units. The petitioner's unit was a stone crusher included in the negative list, and its location outside the crusher zone meant that it did not satisfy the conditions for the incentive scheme under the 1991 Act and the notification. Since the eligibility certificate had been issued contrary to the Rules, its withdrawal by the screening committee was held to be consistent with the statutory scheme. Estoppel could not be invoked to continue a benefit contrary to law.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to sales tax exemption or to restoration of the eligibility certificate, and the withdrawal decision was upheld.

---