Tax moratorium conditions upheld: delegated rule valid, and benefit ends on discontinuance despite claims for parity.

Rule 43(4)(a) of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948, was upheld as intra vires because section 8(2A) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, permits moratorium subject to conditions prescribed by rule, and the delegated provision operates independently of the exemption scheme under section 4A. The court also held that moratorium ceases on discontinuance of business under the rule, so a writ court cannot direct relaxation of that statutory condition or continue the benefit on grounds of parity or policy. The petitioner therefore had no enforceable right to retain the moratorium after discontinuance and transfer of the unit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether rule 43(4)(a) of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948, was ultra vires section 8(2A) read with section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. (ii) Whether the petitioner, after discontinuance and transfer of the unit, was entitled to continue the moratorium or to obtain a writ directing relaxation of the statutory condition in rule 43(4)(a).

Issue (i): Whether rule 43(4)(a) of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948, was ultra vires section 8(2A) read with section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: Section 4A provides for exemption or concessional tax treatment, while section 8(2A) creates a separate facility of moratorium in lieu of exemption, subject to conditions prescribed by rule. The rule-making power under section 8(2A) is independent and governs the terms on which deferment is granted. Rule 43 therefore operates in its own field and cannot be struck down merely because its conditions differ from the exemption scheme under section 4A. Delegated legislation carries a presumption of validity and can be invalidated only if it conflicts with the enabling Act or the Constitution. No such inconsistency was shown.

Conclusion: Rule 43(4)(a) was held to be intra vires and valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner, after discontinuance and transfer of the unit, was entitled to continue the moratorium or to obtain a writ directing relaxation of the statutory condition in rule 43(4)(a).

Analysis: Moratorium under section 8(2A) is conditional and ceases on discontinuance of business under rule 43(4)(a). The court held that the statutory condition cannot be bypassed on considerations of policy, supposed spirit of exemption, or alleged similar treatment in another case. A writ court cannot direct the authorities to act contrary to an applicable statutory rule, and parity claims cannot override express statutory command. The petitioner therefore had no enforceable right to continuation of moratorium after discontinuance and transfer of the unit.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the moratorium or to the relief sought.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, the impugned refusal to grant the claimed relief was sustained, and the statutory scheme governing moratorium on tax remained applicable as framed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the enabling provision authorizes deferred tax payment subject to prescribed conditions, the validity of the delegated rule must be tested against the parent Act alone, and a court cannot grant mandamus to override an express statutory condition governing cessation of the benefit.

---