Statutory exemption claim not barred by limitation when a pending application was saved by a later proviso creating the right.

Section 30A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 originally did not extend exemption to units already covered by the Industrial Policy, 1989. The later proviso and Explanation, effective from 14 November 1992, clarified that industries that came into production on or after 1 April 1989 could obtain exemption and linked the provision to the 1989 policy. Because the application was already pending when this amendment came into force, the right to seek exemption arose only on insertion of the proviso, and the claim could not be rejected as time-barred. The rejection on limitation was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner's application for exemption from sales tax under section 30A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 was barred by limitation despite the proviso and Explanation being inserted during pendency of the application.

Analysis: Section 30A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, as originally enacted, did not extend exemption to units that had already obtained eligibility certificates under the Industrial Policy, 1989. The subsequent proviso and Explanation, introduced with effect from 14 November 1992, clarified that industries which came into production on or after 1 April 1989 could be granted exemption with effect from that date, and the Explanation linked the provision to the Industrial Policy, 1989. As the petitioner's application had already been filed and was pending when this amendment came into force, the statutory right to seek exemption arose only on the later insertion of the proviso and could not be treated as time-barred on the ground of limitation.

Conclusion: The application was not barred by limitation and the rejection on that ground was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory proviso confers for the first time a right to seek exemption and the application is already pending when that right comes into existence, the claim cannot be rejected as time-barred merely because the application was filed before the amendment.

---