MAHESH CHAND GOYAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four writ petitions are identical in nature and raise common question for consideration, they were heard together and are decided by a common judgment. Facts are not in dispute and may briefly be recapitulated. The petitioners are industrial units and one of them started its production in February, 1986, while the others started their productions in May or September, 1987. M/s. Sunshine Electro Private Limited in Writ Petition No. 1340 of 1989 submitted an application in form "a" on February 5, 1988, for sales tax exemption 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 were issued by the Screening Committee. It is contended that the tax concession should have been granted to them under the aforesaid Incentive Scheme from the dates the petitioners submitted their applications in form "a" under clause 7 (a) to the Screening Committee. Reliance in support of the contention was placed on Om Shiv Shakti Cement Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [1989] 72 STC 437, decided by a Division Bench of this Court on September 28, 1988 and it was contended that all THESE four writ petitions are squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. The petitions were opposed by the respondents. It was contended that in clause 7, a new sub-clause (d) was added, inserted and introduced on February 5, 1988. This sub-clause lays down that the benefit of the Incentive Scheme shall be available from the date of issue of the eligibility certificate. The eligibility certificates were issued to the petitioners and the benefit of the Incentive Scheme was extended to them from the date of the issue of the eligibility certificate. Learned counsel for the respondents had the fairness to concede that in case clause 7 (d) of the Incentive Scheme is not applicable, the cases are squarely covered by the judgment tendered in Om Shiv Shakti Cement Pvt. Ltd. [1989] 72 STC 437 (Raj ). Clause 7 (d) reads as under : " 7. Grant of eligibility certificate.- (a) to (c ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (d) The benefit of the incentive scheme shall be available from the date of issue of the eligibility certificate. "

(2.) 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 the petitioners for the benefit of the Incentive Scheme will be governed by it. I have taken the respective submissions into consideration.

(3.) A few words may be added in respect of Civil Writ Petition No. 867 of 1989 (Mahesh Chand and another v. State of Rajasthan ). The petitioners submitted the application in form "a" on August 27, 1987. Their application was dismissed by the Screening Committee. The petitioners filed a writ petition against the action of the Screening Committee and that writ petition was dismissed on September 21, 1988, with the observations that in case the petitioners filed I. S. I. certificate before the Screening Committee, their application could then be considered. The I. S. I. certificate was filed on January 21, 1989. The application filed by the petitioners in form "a" was, therefore, defective and the defect was removed only on January 21, 1989, when the I. S. I. certificate was filed. It would be, therefore, taken that these petitioners submitted the application in form "a" under clause 7 (a) of the Incentive Scheme on January 21, 1989. They are, therefore, entitled to get the eligibility certificate with effect from January 21, 1989 and not prior to it. The writ petition filed by these petitioners has, therefore, no merit and should be dismissed.