Incentive scheme interpretation limits shifting between regimes and bars delay condonation without express enabling power.

An incentive scheme must be applied within its express operative field: units already covered by the 1985 dispensation were validly excluded from the Rajasthan Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme, 1989, and could not switch to that scheme. The 1989 scheme was read prospectively and as a whole so that its clauses on pending or time-barred applications applied only to units already within the 1987 incentive regime. Where the 1987 scheme prescribed a fixed option period and contained no power to extend time, the District Level Screening Committee could not condone delay, reopen a final rejection, or treat a belated application as maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a new industrial unit covered by the 1985 dispensation could opt for benefits under the Rajasthan Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1989; (ii) whether the District Level Screening Committee could entertain a belated application and condone delay after rejection under the 1987 scheme.

Issue (i): whether a new industrial unit covered by the 1985 dispensation could opt for benefits under the Rajasthan Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1989.

Analysis: The 1989 scheme operated prospectively from 5 March 1987 and its structure showed that units already governed by the 1985 dispensation were kept outside its operative field. Clause 1(b) expressly excluded such units from the alternative option to shift to the new scheme, while clauses 1(c) and 1(d) were read as applying only to units already within the 1987 incentive regime whose applications were either rejected on limitation or were pending. The provisions were construed as a whole so that no clause became redundant.

Conclusion: The exclusion of units covered by the 1985 dispensation was valid, and such units were not entitled to claim benefits under the 1989 scheme.

Issue (ii): whether the District Level Screening Committee could entertain a belated application and condone delay after rejection under the 1987 scheme.

Analysis: The 1987 scheme prescribed a time limit for exercising the option, and it contained no enabling provision for extension of time or condonation of delay. After the earlier rejection became final, there was no jurisdiction to reopen the matter, review the rejection, or treat a belated application as maintainable under the 1987 scheme. Authorities recognising relief in different factual settings were held inapplicable.

Conclusion: The District Level Screening Committee had no power to condone the delay or entertain the second application, and the rejection under the 1987 scheme remained final.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's view succeeded because the respondents were not entitled to shift to the 1989 scheme and the belated claim under the 1987 scheme was not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: An incentive scheme must be construed according to its express operative field, and in the absence of an enabling provision, an authority cannot condone delay or reopen a final rejection to extend fiscal benefits.

---