STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. versus BALDEV SPINNERS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 1156 · Decided: 25-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 1156 . 
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 
v 
BALDEV SPINNERS PVT. LTD. & ORS. 
Civil Appeal No.1973 of 2006 
FEBRUARY 25, 2009 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975: r.28A(8)(a)(1) 
- Eligibility certificate - Withdrawal of, for non-production of 
C NOC/CLU certificate - Held: Once an eligibility certificate is 
granted, it can only be withdrawn in the circumstances 
mentioned in clause (a) of sub-rule (8) - Non-production of 
NOCICLU certificate by itself not a ground for withdrawal as it 
is not one of the grounds/circumstances mentioned in the said 
clause - However, omission tq disclose that the land was an 
D 
agricultural land and that assessee did not possess or produce 
thf! NOC/CLU Certificate, was a concealment, misstatement 
and misrepresentation of a material fact and department is 
entitled to withdraw the eligibility certificate underclause (a)(i) 
of sub-rule (8) - Punjab General Clauses Act - s. 19. 
E 
Punjab General Clauses Act: s. 19 - Power to issue 
Notifications, orders, rules or byelaws includes power to add, 
amend, vary or rescind. 
The questions which arose for consideration in these 
F 
appeals were whether an eligibility certificate issued 
under sub-rule (5) of Rule 28A of Haryana General Sales 
Tax Rules, 1975 could be withdrawn on a ground other 
than those specified in Clause (a) of sub-rule 8 of Rule 
28A; and whether withdrawal of eligibility certificate for 
G non-compliance with the basic requirement of furnishing 
a NOC/CLU certificate from the Town and Country 
Planning Department for change of land use from 
agricultural to non-agricultural along with its application 
H 
1156 
L
' 
.... 
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. V. BALDEV .. 
1157 
SPINNERS PVT LTD. & ORS. 
in Form ST-70 could be said to be on any of the ground A 
mentioned under Clause (a) of sub-rule 8 of rule 28A. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Sub-rule (8) of Rule 28A of Haryana 
General Sales Tax Rules, 1975, provided for withdrawal 8 
of the eligibility certificate in three specific circumstances 
mentioned in clause (a) thereof. Where the rules prescribe 
the conditions for grant of a benefit and also the 
conditions for withdrawal of such benefit, then the benefit, 
can be withdrawn only if any of the conditions prescribed C 
exist, and not otherwise; unless the provision relating to 
withdrawal/rescission also reserves discretion to the 
authority concerned to exercise the power of withdrawal 
wherever warranted. [Para 8] [1169-C-F] 
1.2. Section 19 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 0 
which provides that where any State Act confers a power' 
to issue a notification or orders, rules or bye-laws, then 
that power includes a power exercisable in the like. 
manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions 
(if any) to add, to amend, vary or rescind any notification, E 
orders, rules or bye-laws so issued. Section 19 of the. 
Punjab General Clauses Act (corresponding to section 21 ' 
of General Clauses Act, 1897) merely embodies a rufe of 
construction and that be displaced to the extent, the 
provisions, the scheme and the object of any particular 
statute indicate a contrary intention. It is intended to apply F 
only where the rules in question do not contain a specific 
provision govern .. ing or regulating the matter. The question · 
whether or not the said rule of construction (the implied 
power to rescind or withdraw an order) would. apply or 
not, will depend on the subject matter, context and the G 
effect of the relevant provisions of the statute/rules under 
which the order is issued. Therefore, the scheme, its object 
and all relevant provisions have to be examined to decide 
the application of the said rule of. construction. [Para 9] 
[1169-G-H; 1170-A-D] 
H 
1158 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The State of Bihar v. D. N. Gangu/y ( 1959) SCR 1191; State 
B 
c 
of Kera/a v. K. G. Madhavan Pillai (1988) 4 SCC 669; 
H. C. Suman 
v, 
Rehabilitation Ministry Employees' 
Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. (1991) 4 SCC 485 
....,. relied on. · 
Nice Spinners Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana - 121 STC 
456 - referred to. 
Justice G.P Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation 
(11th Edition) - referred to. 
· 1.3. Clause (a) of sub-rule (8) specifically enumerated 
three circumstances in which eligibility certificate is liable 
to be withdrawn. They were : (i) discovery that the certificate 
had been obtained by the applicant
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.