2008 (3) TMI 462

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ligibility certificate dated February 23, 1995 entitling it to sales tax exemption under rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (for short, "the 1975 Rules") for the manufacture of monochrome monitors and black and white TV sets. In other words, whether the respondent was entitled to claim addition of a new item (colour monitor) in the eligibility certificate given to it, which certificate was restricted to the manufacture of monochrome monitors and black-and-white TV sets. On February 23, 1995, the respondent was granted "eligibility certificate" entitling it to avail of sales tax exemption under rule 28A of the 1975 Rules to the extent of Rs. 276.95 lakhs for a period of seven years commencing from February 23, 1995 to F....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lant herein) to add "colour monitor" to the eligibility certificate dated February 23, 1995. The decision of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the High Court by impugned judgment dated July 9, 2007 Reported as State of Haryana v. Samtel India Ltd. [2008] 13 VST 276 (P&H). in C.W.P. No. 9764 of 2007. At the outset, we quote hereinbelow sub-rule (2)(d) of rule 28A of the 1975 Rules, which reads as under: "'Expansion/diversification of industrial unit' means a capacity set up or installed during the operative period which creates additional productions/manufacturing facilities for manufacture of the same product/products as of the existing unit (expansion) or different products (diversification) at the same or new location,- (i) in wh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rding to the respondent herein, colour monitor was an improved version of monochrome monitor and, therefore, it was entitled to the modification of eligibility certificate dated February 23, 1995. It was further urged on behalf of the respondent that, with the improved technology, liberal interpretation of the rule was warranted. In this case we find that, while deciding the writ petition filed by the department, the above rule has not been analysed by the High Court. No reason has been given by the High Court in its impugned judgment as to what weightage should be given to the words used in the above rule, particularly, the expression "for manufacture of the same product". Similarly, the High Court has failed to consider the effect o....