TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (4) TMI 995
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... manufacture digital switches equipment and systems in 1993 and the unit came into commercial production on February 1, 1994. The petitioner-company being eligible under the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as, "the 1975 Rules") applied for issuance of eligibility certificate for claiming benefit of exemption from payment of sales tax. The eligibility certificate was issued to the petitionercompany for a period of seven years with effect from February 1, 1994 with an overall sales tax exemption of Rs. 46.89 crores. Thereafter, the petitioner made an additional capital investment and increased its manufacturing capacity. The petitioner again applied for exemption of the tax under the rules on the expanded cap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferred to as, "the Tribunal"). Two member Bench of the Tribunal heard the appeal and accepted the same vide order dated April 5, 2004. The Tribunal has clearly held that the assessee should be allowed to change his option. It was further held that the appellate authority does not have any power to impose conditions that are not provided in rule 28A of the 1975 Rules. A review petition was filed against the order of the Tribunal dated April 5, 2004 mainly on the ground that no appeal is provided against the order of the Director and the appeal is maintainable only against the order of the High Level Committee refusing to grant exemption certificate. Two members Bench of the Tribunal differed in their opinion on the review application. One of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the present petition and the matter be referred to the High Level Committee to decide representation moved by the petitioner, which was wrongly rejected vide order dated December 30, 2003. He further submitted that in fact the Director ought not to have taken decision on the representation since he is also a Member Secretary of the High Level Committee and the representation should have been placed before the High Level Committee to take the decision on the point as to whether commencement period of the exemption requires modification or not. Mr. Ashwani Chopra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents stated that the matter does not require reconsideration by the High Level Committee in view of the fact that the petitioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hever is later. No application shall be entertained if not preferred within time. An application with incomplete or incorrect particulars including the documents required to be attached therewith shall be deemed as having not been made if the applicant fails to complete it on an opportunity afforded to him in this behalf. (b) Applications from small-scale units will be considered by the Lower Level Screening Committee and those from medium/large scale units by the Higher Level Screening Committee. (c) The General Manager, District Industries Centre shall immediately forward one copy of the application and documents on receipt to the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner-in-charge of the District who will send his comments within a p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the Director, Industries has absolutely no jurisdiction to take decision on the representation in the matter of exemption certificate. The matter of modification of the period of commencement of the exemption certificate can only be decided by the High Level Committee. The Director ought to have placed the representation before the High Level Committee. Mr. Chopra could not dispute this. However, he confined his argument that the representation does not require any reconsideration in view of the undertaking submitted by the petitioner in compliance with the appellate authorities' order dated October 30, 2000. What would be the effect of the undertaking submitted by the petitioner and whether exemption period or date of comm....