1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2605 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.16955 of 2008)

STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS ...APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

M/S JOHNSON MATTHEY INDIA PVT.LTD. ...RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.   

Civil Writ Petition No. 12075 of 2007 was a Writ Petition filed under Article 226  

of the Constitution by M/s Johnson Matthey India Private Limited (respondent herein).  In  

the Writ Petition the prayer was to quash Order dated 7.6.2007 passed by the Director of  

Industries  and  Commerce,  Haryana,  communicating  the  decision  of  Higher  Level  

Screening  Committee  (for  brevity,  `the  Screening  Committee')  constituted  under  Rule  

28C(o) of Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975.  It may be stated that the said Screening  

Committee had withdrawn the benefit of sales tax concession of Rs.885.15 lacs, granted in  

favour of respondent No. 1 herein, pursuant to the decision of the Screening Committee  

earlier taken on 6th December, 2004 in its 89th meeting.  The prayer in the Writ Petition was  

to maintain the said earlier decision dated 6th December, 2004 in favour of respondent No. 1  

which, as stated above, stood subsequently rescinded by the impugned order dated 7th June,  

2007.  

The narrow controversy which arises  in this  civil  appeal  is  whether the Unit  

stood registered with the Department of Industries in terms of Rule 28C(o) in Chapter 4C

2

of Haryana General Sales Tax Rule, 1975, before the cut off date, namely, April 30, 2000?

Having heard learned counsel on both sides, the controversy is with regard to:  

which  is  the  registering  authority  contemplated  by  Rule  28C(o);  whether  there  is  a  

difference  between IEM and  Registration  under  the  said  Rule;  whether  the  competent  

authority had registered the Unit as required under Rule 28C(o) on or before the cut off  

date, namely, 30th April, 2000; and whether there is a difference between Application for  

Foreign Collaboration and IEM conceptually?

Having heard learned counsel on both sides we find that relevant points were  

neither pleaded nor argued before the High Court.  Even requisite documents which were  

shown to us during the course of hearing by both sides were not placed before the High  

Court.

In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case  

and keeping all questions of law open,  we set aside the impugned judgment of the High  

Court and remit the case to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Accordingly, we restore Civil Writ Petition No. 12075 of 2007 on the file of the  

High  Court.   We  give  liberty  to  the  parties  appearing  before  us  to  file  additional  

documents.   Liberty  is  also  being  given  to  the  parties  appearing  before  us  to  file  

additional/fresh  affidavits.   We  are  directing  respondent  herein,  who  was  the  original  

petitioner in the High Court, to implead the Union of India, Ministry of Commerce and  

Industries,  in  the above Writ Petition,  within  a period of  four weeks from today.   We  

request  the  High  Court  to  expeditiously  hear  and  dispose  of  the  above  Writ  Petition,  

preferably within six months.

Learned senior counsel  appearing on behalf  the appellant  herein fairly  states  

that during the pendency of the Writ Petition before the High Court and for a period of  

two weeks thereafter, they will not take steps to recover the dues, if any.Accordingly,  this

3

civil appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

....................J. [ S.H. KAPADIA ]

New Delhi, ....................J April 16, 2009 [ AFTAB ALAM ]  

4

ITEM NO.1                    COURT NO.5                   SECTION III (Part heard)

             S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS                        Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)No. 16955/2008

(From the judgment and order dated 27/11/2007 in CWP No. 12075/2007   of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                                  Petitioner(s)

                       VERSUS

M/S.JOHNSON MATTHEY INDIA PVT.LTD.                       Respondent(s)

(With appln. for modification of Court's Order dated 8.7.2008 and with prayer for interim  relief)(for final disposal)

Date: 16/04/2009  This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.H. KAPADIA         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM

For Petitioner(s)    Mr. Anoop G. Chaudhari, Sr.Adv.                      Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv.                      Mr. Sandeep Chaturvei, Adv.                      Mr. Arvind Nayyar, Adv.                      Ms. Naresh Bakshi, Adv.

For Respondent(s)    Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr.Adv.                      Mr. S. Prasad, Adv.                      Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Adv.                      Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv.                      Mr. Manu Krishnan, Adv.                          UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                         O R D E R

Leave granted. The appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.   

(S.Thapar) P.S.to Registrar

(Madhu Saxena) Court Master

5

The signed order is placed on the file.