9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... already been made, prior to coming into force of this notification dated October 11, 1995, in terms of notification dated August 28, 1993, the benefit of exemption cannot be denied by giving effect retrospectively. The assessing authority therefore may consider this aspect as to when the actual investment has been made by the petitioner. It has been held in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1979] 44 STC 42 (SC) and Pournami Oil Mills v. State of Kerala [1987] 65 STC 1 (SC), that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable to the new unit, in view of the promise given by the State. Writ petition stands disposed off with the above observations. The view of the learned single Judge is that the benefit of the notification dated August 28, 1993 cannot be denied to an industry which has made investment for expansion/modernisation/diversification by giving effect to the notification dated October 11, 1995 retrospectively. Secondly, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the promise held out by the State Government in the notification dated August 28, 1993. Briefly stated the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication dated August 28, 1993 is neither withdrawn nor taken away by the impugned notification dated October 11, 1995. The respondent-company would assert that the impugned notification is not in the nature of clarificatory notification as contended by the appel-= lants in its memorandum of appeal, but a notification which would take away the benefit extended under the earlier notification dated August 28, 1993 and therefore, the learned single Judge was justified in declaring that the impugned notification is prospective and is further justified in observing in his order, that, if the investment is already made by an industrial unit pursuant to the policy declared and notified by the State Government in its notification dated August 28, 1983, the benefit of exemption cannot be denied by giving retrospective effect to the notification dated October 11, 1995. The learned counsel appearing for the parties in these proceedings reiterate their assertions made in their pleadings at the time of hearing of this appeal. The only question that requires to be considered and decided in this appeal is, whether the conclusion reached by the learned single Judge that the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant for the purpose of this case. Therefore, the same requires to be extracted. It reads as under: (iii) tax exemption to an industrial unit undertaking investment in expansion/diversification/modernisation shall be available only to the additional capacity created by it out of such investment. A perusal of the aforesaid clause of the notification would only indicate the following. They are: (i) Tax exemption is available to an industrial unit, which undertakes investment in its expansion, diversification and modernisation. (ii) Secondly, such expansion, diversification and modernisation shall be available to an industrial unit only to the additional capacity created by it out of such investment. The emphasis is on the tax exemption on the additional capacity created by an industrial unit, which is already in existence. By a subsequent Notification in No. FD 1 CSL 95(I) dated October 11, 1995, the State Government has substituted item (iii) of Explanation II to the earlier notification dated August 28, 1993. The substituted portion of item (iii) to Explanation II reads as under: (iii)(a) Tax exemption to an industrial unit, undertaking investment in exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not expand or add to the scope of either the section, or the rules or the notification. An Explanation could introduce a fiction or settle a matter of controversy. The orthodox function of an Explanation is to explain the meaning and the effect of the main provision to which it is an Explanation and to clear up any doubt or ambiguity in it. Legislature has different ways of explaining itself and in the last analysis, the words used alone are repository of legislative invent. The construction of an Explanation must depend upon its terms and no theory of its purpose can be entertained unless it can be inferred from the language used. The Explanation added to a notification becomes an integral part of the notification itself. The question as to whether the Explanation seeks to control the effect of the notification is immaterial, as the Explanation purports neither to control nor to alter but only seeks to explain or clarifies. In the present case, we are concerned not with the new industrial units, but the units which are already in existence but would make investment either for the purpose of expansion/modernisation/diversification. In the notification dated August 28, 1993 un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
