9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (4) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emption under the Incentive Scheme notified by the State Government on May 23, 1987. The remaining three petitioners submitted their applications in form "A" under the aforesaid scheme in June or August, 1987. The Screening Committee granted eligibility certificate to them in 1988. M/s. Sunrise Rubber Industries Limited, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1222 of 1989 was granted the eligibility certificate on May 4, 1988, M/s. Shri Laxmi Cement Private Limited on May 4, 1989, M/s. Rajdhani Associates Private Limited on February 12, 1988 and M/s. Sunshine Electro Private Limited on June 2, 1989. The tax concession under the aforesaid notification was thereafter granted to them from the aforesaid dates on which the eligibility certificates we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty certificate." This sub-clause (d) was inserted and introduced by the notification issued on March 3, 1988. The question which arises for consideration is whether the said sub-clause is retrospective or prospective in nature. It was argued by Mr. Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the aforesaid sub-clause is prospective and does not govern the applications already submitted on or before February 5, 1988, or March 3, 1988. Since all the applications were submitted before February 5, 1988, the aforesaid sub-clause cannot be made applicable to them. It was, on the other hand, contended by Mr. Bapna, learned counsel for the respondents, that the aforesaid sub-clause (d) is retrospective and as such the applications filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is expressly conferred by the parent enactment." It is also well-settled that a fiscal provision cannot by construction be regarded as retrospective except where the statute containing it expressly makes it retrospective. Keeping the aforesaid principles in view, it can be confidently said that clause 7(d) has no retrospective effect. The said sub-clause is not retrospective in operation and does not govern the applications submitted before it was inserted or introduced in clause 7. The language used in sub-clause (d) also does not show that it was inserted with retrospective effect. Clause 7(d) is, therefore, prospective and cannot be applied to the applications submitted by the. industrial units under the Incentive Scheme. The appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rit and should be dismissed. In the result, the three writ petitions (1) S.S. Bang and another v. State of Rajasthan and others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1222 of 1989), (2) Suresh Chand Rathi and another v. State of Rajasthan and others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1340 of 1989) and (3) Rajdhani Associates Private Limited and another v. State of Rajasthan and others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3810 of 1989) are allowed and it is declared that the eligibility certificates that have been issued to the petitioners under the Incentive Scheme would be operative with effect from the dates of the applications submitted by the petitioners and not with effect from the dates of issuance of the said certificates. The petitioners are entitle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
