Concessionary fiscal scheme conditions must be proved to claim reduced fees, and a reasonable cut-off date may be upheld.

A voluntary SEBI regularisation scheme was treated as a valid concessionary fiscal measure, and the conditions attached to the concession were held inseparable from the benefit itself. Concessional fee treatment under Schedule III was viewed as an exception to the normal fee structure, so the stock-broker had to prove entitlement by producing bifurcated turnover data and the required auditor's certificate. In the absence of such proof, SEBI was entitled to compute registration fees on gross turnover at the normal rate. The cut-off date fixed for furnishing supporting material was also upheld as a reasonable feature of the scheme, given the extensions already granted and the wider compliance record.

---

---

Issues: Whether the SEBI interest liability regularisation scheme and the cut-off date prescribed for furnishing turnover data and auditor's certificate were valid, and whether SEBI could compute registration fees at the normal rate in the absence of bifurcated turnover data supporting claim to concessional treatment.

Analysis: The Scheme was held to be a voluntary concessionary measure framed in exercise of SEBI's statutory powers to regulate the securities market and levy fees. The concessional treatment under the Scheme and the Regulations was treated as a composite arrangement, so the conditions attached to the concession could not be separated from the benefit itself. Clause 1(bb) of Schedule III, which provided concessional rates for specified categories of transactions, was treated as an exception to the normal fee structure under clause 1(b); therefore, the burden lay on the stock-broker claiming the concession to establish the exceptional transactions by producing bifurcated turnover data and the required auditor's certificate. In the absence of such proof, SEBI was entitled to assess fees on the gross turnover at the normal rate. The cut-off date fixed by SEBI was also upheld as a permissible and reasonable feature of a fiscal regularisation scheme, particularly where repeated extensions had been granted and a large number of brokers had already complied.

Conclusion: The Scheme and the cut-off date were held valid, and SEBI's method of computing registration fees on the basis of gross turnover where the required supporting material was not furnished was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed, and the Court declined to interfere with the Scheme or with the fee computation adopted by SEBI.

Ratio Decidendi: A concessionary or regularisation scheme in the fiscal field may lawfully be made conditional, the conditions cannot be severed from the benefit, and a reasonable cut-off date may be prescribed unless shown to be arbitrary or whimsical; where the claimant fails to prove entitlement to an exception, the authority may proceed on the normal statutory basis.

---