TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (5) TMI 489
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d also under rule 28-A of the Rules framed under the State Act have been withdrawn midway being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, violative of principles of natural justice and hence, liable to be quashed by this honourable Court. (ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the exemption certificate dated February 27, 2003 to be valid for a period of nine years from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2006 in view of the declaration of the area of Pehowa to be Industrial Backward Area vide notification dated March 5, 1999 (annexure P2) in terms of the provisions of rule 28-A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975. (iii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s"). It has further prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to modify the exemption certificate so as to entitle it to claim exemption for a period of nine years commencing from January 1, 1998 on the ground that the area of Pehowa has been declared to be industrially backward area vide notification dated March 5, 1999 issued under rule 28-A of the 1975 Rules. 3.. Shri Narender Hooda argued that even though the impugned enactment is not beyond the legislative competence of the State, the same should be struck down because the provisions contained therein have the effect of depriving the petitioner of its right to continue to avail of the benefit of exemption from payment of tax granted under rule 28-A of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... need not examine the vires of the impugned provisions on the ground of lack of legislative competence. 6.. The second ground of challenge raised by the petitioner is totally devoid of substance and merits rejection. The petitioner has not placed any material on the record of the writ petition to show that the impugned provisions are discriminatory and violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. We are further of the view that the legislative instrument cannot be struck down on the ground of arbitrariness simpliciter and unless the petitioner is able to show that the impugned legislation violates the particular provisions of the Constitution of India, the court cannot grant a declaration of invalidity qua the same. 8.. De h....