Sales tax exemption for expansion or diversification denied where required fixed capital investment was not established.

Sales tax exemption under Rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules was available only if the assessee satisfied the statutory requirements of expansion or diversification, including the stipulated additional fixed capital investment during the operative period. On the record, the unit failed to show the requisite investment or statutory expansion in the legal sense, so inclusion of colour T.V. monitors in the eligibility certificate was unsustainable. The writ court also declined interference because the challenge to the Tribunal's order was unexplainedly delayed and the Tribunal's interpretation was found correct on merits. The Tribunal's order was therefore sustained and writ relief was refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the addition of colour T.V. monitors to the eligibility certificate could be claimed as part of expansion or diversification under Rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975. (ii) Whether the writ petition deserved interference in view of the delay in challenging the Tribunal's order.

Issue (i): Whether the addition of colour T.V. monitors to the eligibility certificate could be claimed as part of expansion or diversification under Rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975.

Analysis: The entitlement to sales tax exemption depended upon satisfying the statutory concept of expansion or diversification within Rule 28A. The material on record showed that the industrial unit did not communicate or establish the requisite additional fixed capital investment during the operative period, nor did it demonstrate expansion of the existing unit in the statutory sense. In these circumstances, the Tribunal's view that the case did not fall within the meaning of expansion/diversification was found to be correct.

Conclusion: The claim for inclusion of colour T.V. monitors within the eligibility certificate was not sustainable and the finding in favour of the unit was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition deserved interference in view of the delay in challenging the Tribunal's order.

Analysis: The challenge was brought after an unexplained delay, and the Court also noted that the merits did not justify interference because the statutory interpretation adopted by the Tribunal was correct. The delay and the absence of merit both weighed against exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Interference in writ jurisdiction was declined.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was sustained and the writ petition was not entertained, leaving the exemption claim against the State unsuccessful.

Ratio Decidendi: A sales tax exemption under Rule 28A can be extended only when the assessee satisfies the statutory requirements of expansion or diversification, including the stipulated additional fixed capital investment during the operative period; absent those requirements, writ interference is unwarranted, especially where the challenge is delayed.

---