Retrospective corrigendum cannot defeat sales tax deferment where eligibility was acted upon under the published rule.

Deferment of sales tax under Section 25A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 depended on compliance with Rule 17B(b)(viii), which as published was understood to permit eligibility on either investment of not less than Rs. 5 lakhs in plant and machinery or employment of not less than ten persons. The petitioners had acted on that published text and altered their position accordingly, and the State had applied the same understanding for years. A later corrigendum substituting "and" for "or" could not retrospectively defeat the accrued benefit after such reliance, especially where no clerical mistake had been pleaded. The denial of deferment was therefore unsustainable and the statutory benefit remained available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to deferment of sales tax under Section 25A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 read with Rule 17B(b)(viii) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975, and whether the later corrigendum substituting the word "or" with "and" could be relied upon to deny the benefit.

Analysis: Deferment of tax under Section 25A was available subject to the prescribed conditions. Rule 17B(b)(viii), as published and acted upon, was understood to treat investment of not less than Rs. 5 lakhs in plant and machinery or employment of not less than ten persons as sufficient for eligibility. The petitioners had set up their units and altered their position on the basis of the published text and the State itself had proceeded for years on the same understanding. A subsequent corrigendum could not be used to defeat the benefit after the petitioners had already acted on the existing statutory language, particularly when no clerical mistake was pleaded in the written statement and the change was noticed only later.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to deferment of sales tax, and the denial of eligibility on the basis of the corrigendum was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded and the orders denying the benefit were quashed, with the petitioners held entitled to the statutory deferment period.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory benefit that has been acted upon on the basis of the published rule cannot be retrospectively defeated by a later corrigendum where the parties have already altered their position in reliance on the original text.

---