Literal construction of tax notifications limits disqualification to simultaneous concession use, not past availing of relief.

A taxing notification must be read literally, so a condition that a unit "should not be availing" a tax-free raw-material concession bars only simultaneous enjoyment of both benefits and does not exclude a unit that had earlier but no longer enjoyed that concession. Eligible industrial units satisfying the remaining conditions could therefore claim adjustment. For post-notification units, entitlement depended on proof that they had not opted for the earlier concession; absent that factual showing, complete relief could not be granted in those writ petitions. The court also set aside the penalty demand in one matter and rejected the connected contempt proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the expression "should not be availing of any concession of tax-free purchase of raw materials under any notification issued under the Industrial Incentive Scheme of the State Government" barred only simultaneous enjoyment of the incentive and the benefit under the impugned notifications, or also barred units that had earlier availed such concession. (ii) Whether units which commenced production after the relevant notification dates could claim adjustment under the notifications if they had not opted for tax-free purchase of raw materials.

Issue (i): The notification was construed on its plain language, read with the table of eligible industrial units and the scheme of adjustment of tax. The expression "should not be availing" was held to denote the present and continuing enjoyment of another concession, not a past and completed availing of an earlier incentive. The court rejected any rewriting of the text into "have not availed", holding that a taxing notification cannot be recast by judicial interpretation when the language is clear.

Conclusion: The bar applied only to simultaneous availing of both benefits. Units that had ceased to enjoy the earlier concession were not excluded on the ground of prior availing alone and were entitled to adjustment if the other conditions of the notifications were satisfied.

Issue (ii): For units that had gone into production after the relevant date, the notification used different language: they were required only not to have opted for the concession of tax-free purchase of raw materials. On that footing, the earlier fact of availing was held irrelevant; the decisive question was whether such units had opted for the concession. In the absence of an averment that they had never opted, complete relief could not be granted in those two writ petitions, though the court left it open to them to establish entitlement on that factual basis.

Conclusion: Such units could obtain adjustment only if they had not opted for the earlier concession. The two writ petitions on this aspect were dismissed, subject to the observation that entitlement could still be established on the stated factual basis.

Final Conclusion: The notifications were given a literal construction, resulting in relief to eligible industrial units who were not simultaneously enjoying the earlier tax-free purchase concession, while claims of the post-notification units depended on proof that they had not opted for that concession. The connected contempt matters failed, and the penalty demand in one case was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In a taxing notification, clear words must be given their ordinary meaning; a condition that a unit "should not be availing" an existing concession prohibits simultaneous enjoyment and does not by itself disqualify a unit that had earlier but no longer availed such concession.

---