Fiscal concession may be made prospective and selective; failure to opt for concessional purchase treatment defeats later refund claim.

A fiscal concession under the Rajasthan sales tax framework was upheld as prospective and selective: the State could limit partial exemption to in-State sales first and extend a similar benefit to inter-State sales from a later date without offending Article 14. The notification's different commencement dates were treated as a permissible exercise of discretion in granting tax relief, especially where inter-State and export sales lay outside the immediate operation of the State levy. The dealer was also denied refund on raw wool purchases because it had not opted for the concessional treatment at the time of purchase under sections 5C and 5CC, and could not later claim excess tax relief merely because the finished goods were sold outside the State or exported.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notification confining partial exemption to sales effected within the State and postponing the benefit for inter-State sales was discriminatory or violative of Article 14; (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to claim the exemption or refund for raw wool purchases when it had not availed the concessional benefit under sections 5C and 5CC at the time of purchase.

Issue (i): Whether the notification confining partial exemption to sales effected within the State and postponing the benefit for inter-State sales was discriminatory or violative of Article 14.

Analysis: The notification dated 30 December 1985 granted partial exemption only for goods manufactured in Rajasthan for sale within the State, while the later notification dated 26 December 1986 extended a similar benefit to inter-State sales under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Court held that the power to grant fiscal concession included the discretion to choose the date from which the concession would operate. Since inter-State and export sales were outside the operation of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, there was no obligation to extend the State notification to those transactions from the earlier date. The classification was therefore not shown to be arbitrary or unconstitutional.

Conclusion: The notification was not hit by Article 14 and the concession for inter-State sales could validly commence only from 26 December 1986.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to claim the exemption or refund for raw wool purchases when it had not availed the concessional benefit under sections 5C and 5CC at the time of purchase.

Analysis: The Court held that sections 5C and 5CC were available according to the terms on which the concession was granted, and a dealer could choose whether to avail the concessional rate at the stage of purchase. If the petitioner did not take the benefit when purchasing raw wool, it could not later insist upon refund of the excess tax merely because the finished goods were sold in inter-State trade or export. The assessing authority had therefore correctly declined the claimed relief.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the claimed benefit or refund.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed in its challenge to the assessment and rectification orders, and the revenue's assessment position was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A fiscal concession cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and the State may validly grant it prospectively and on such terms as it considers fit, without offending Article 14 if the classification is based on the scope and timing of the concession.

---