2010 (5) TMI 820

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....os (Technical)' and `Dichlorvos (Technical)', being manufactured by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "Dealer") are "chemicals" and not "pesticides" within the meaning of Entry 43 of the negative list as contained in Schedule III to the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (for short "the Rules"). The State of Haryana announced an industrial policy for the period 1st April 1988 to 31st March 1997, wherein incentive by way of sales tax exemption was to be given for the industries set up in backward areas of the State. During the year 1994-95, the Dealer set up an industrial unit at village Badgodam, District Panchkula, a backward area, for manufacturing, amongst others, `Monocrotophos (Technical)' and `Dichlorvos (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ents furnished to a financial institution or banks for drawing a loan and which have been accepted by the financial institution or bank concerned for sanction of loan". The effect of Note 2, with which we are concerned, was that the industrial units which had made investment upto 25% of the anticipated cost of the project and which had been included in the negative list in Schedule III for the first time by virtue of the said notification would be entitled to the sales tax exemption related to the extent of investment made upto 3rd January 1996. On 28th May 1997, Note 2 was omitted deeming the same to have always been omitted. The application filed by the Dealer was considered by a High Level Screening Committee, which was of the opinion ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....filed appeals before this Court, inter-alia, contending that the notification deleting Note 2 to Schedule III with retrospective effect and thereby disentitling the Dealers to the benefit of exemption was illegal because Section 64(2A) of the Act had come into force in the year 2001. Accepting the said plea of the Dealers, this Court in Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.1 held that afore-extracted Note 2 could not be given retrospective effect. It was observed thus:- (Para 44, SCC) "By reason of Note 2, certain rights were conferred. Although there lies a distinction between vested rights and accrued rights as by reason of a delegated legislation, a right cannot be taken away. The amendments carried out in 19....