2012 (3) TMI 382 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Review application for amending the eligibility certificate - Held that - The statutory provision defining the new unit clearly contemplates in sub-clause (c) that the benefit be computed from the date from which such registration becomes effective. In the present case, the date of registration of the petitioner s unit is indisputably October 15, 1988. Thus, the benefit which has been given to the petitioner from October 15, 1988 cannot be said to be arbitrary. The U.P. Act No. 28 of 1991 reproduced clearly mentions that the Explanation shall be substituted and be deemed to have been substituted on October 12, 1983. Therefore, the provision having been statutorily made retrospective shall apply with effect from October 12, 1983. The Legislature is within its legislative competence and legislative power to make a law either prospective or retrospective. When consciously a provision has been retrospectively made effective, the fact that the law came subsequently making retrospective effect shall not take out the petitioner s case out of its ambit. In view of the law as deemed to exist with effect from 12th of October, 1983 the new unit is entitled for the actual benefit from the date when registration is made effective, the eligibility certificate cannot be faulted. W.P. dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of order rejecting review application for amending eligibility certificate under Trade Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis:
The petitioner established a new industrial unit and was granted an eligibility certificate from 1988 to 1993. The petitioner filed a review application in 1990, which was rejected in 1993, leading to the current writ petition. The petitioner argued that as per a 1985 notification, an industrial unit applying for registration is entitled to benefits. The State, however, cited an amendment in 1991, stating that units registered after the commencement of the facility period shall be entitled to benefits from the effective registration date. The court considered these arguments and the statutory provisions.

The court examined a Division Bench judgment regarding the definition of "new unit" and the entitlement to benefits from the effective registration date. The court noted that the statutory provision clearly stated that benefits should be computed from the effective registration date. In this case, the petitioner's unit was registered on October 15, 1988, justifying the benefits from that date. The court emphasized that the retrospective application of the law from October 12, 1983, did not exempt the petitioner from its provisions. Therefore, the eligibility certificate benefits from October 15, 1988, were deemed appropriate.

The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the 1991 amendment should not apply retroactively to their case. The court highlighted the legislative power to enact retrospective laws and upheld the application of the law from October 12, 1983. The court found no error in rejecting the review application in 1993, as the law was already amended by then. A previous case cited by the petitioner was deemed irrelevant as it was fact-specific and did not align with the current scenario. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, denying relief to the petitioner based on the legal analysis and precedents cited.