2004 (11) TMI 319 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the conditions prescribed by the authorities for grant of exemption are mandatory for availing the same? Whether the High Court can in exercise of writ jurisdiction direct grant of exemption contrary to the terms thereof and overlooking the statutory conditions prescribed for such grant in the absence of any challenge to the validity of such conditions? Held that - Appeal allowed. The failure to comply with the requirements renders the writ petition filed by the respondent liable to be dismissed. While mandatory rule must be strictly observed, substantial compliance might suffice in the case of a directory rule. Thus the High Court has erred in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein and directing the grant of exemption in favour of the respondent. We, therefore, have no hesitation in setting aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the conditions prescribed by the authorities for grant of exemption are mandatory for availing the same.
2. Whether the High Court can in exercise of writ jurisdiction direct grant of exemption contrary to the terms thereof and overlooking the statutory conditions prescribed for such grant in the absence of any challenge to the validity of such conditions.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether the conditions prescribed by the authorities for grant of exemption are mandatory for availing the same.

The Industrial Promotion Policy, 1995, and subsequent notifications (S.O. Nos. 478/479 dated December 22, 1995, and S.O. Nos. 57/58 dated March 2, 2000) stipulated that new industrial units must obtain prior permission from the State Government in the Industries Department before August 31, 2000, to be eligible for tax exemptions. The respondent, a small-scale industry, did not obtain this prior permission but argued that the temporary registration certificate should suffice as prior permission. The Supreme Court held that "a separate prior permission of the Industries Department before August 31, 2000, is an important condition precedent for any unit to become eligible for the purpose of exemption." The Court emphasized that the conditions prescribed by the authorities are mandatory and non-compliance would disentitle the respondent from the grant of exemption. The application for exemption was rightly rejected by the authorities for non-fulfillment of the statutory obligation.

Issue 2: Whether the High Court can in exercise of writ jurisdiction direct grant of exemption contrary to the terms thereof and overlooking the statutory conditions prescribed for such grant in the absence of any challenge to the validity of such conditions.

The High Court had allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and directed the authorities to treat the temporary registration certificate as prior permission. The Supreme Court found this approach incorrect, stating that "the High Court exercising jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution cannot direct the grant of exemption in favour of the respondent overlooking the statutory conditions prescribed for such grant and that too in the absence of any challenge to the validity of such condition." The Court reiterated that the provisions of exemption clauses should be strictly construed, and the failure to comply with mandatory requirements renders the writ petition liable to be dismissed. The Supreme Court thus set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that non-compliance with the statutory requirement of obtaining prior permission must result in the cancellation of the concession made in favor of the respondent.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court concluded that the conditions prescribed for the grant of exemption are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. The High Court erred in directing the grant of exemption contrary to the statutory conditions. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside.

← Previous Next →