Challenge to amended sales tax exemption provision failed where the operative provision was not the one under attack.

A challenge to an amended tax exemption provision under Section 41C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act failed because the petition did not assail the provision actually in force and governing the dispute. The court held that the amended ceiling linked to approved gross fixed capital investment, as operative from 1 October 1995 and further amended in 1996, could not be tested on the basis urged by the petitioners. On that footing, the claims of promissory estoppel, unreasonableness, and hostile discrimination were not entertainable, and the petition was dismissed without costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the challenge to the amended provision in Section 41C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act on the grounds of promissory estoppel, unreasonableness, and hostile discrimination could be sustained.

Analysis: The petitioners attacked the amendment which introduced a ceiling linked to approved gross fixed capital investment for small scale industrial units governed by the 1979 package scheme. The Court found that the challenge could not be examined on the footing urged by the petitioners because the provision actually in force from 1 October 1995, as further amended by Maharashtra Act 21 of 1996, was not the subject matter of the petition. In that situation, the broader challenge based on promissory estoppel, unreasonableness, and discrimination against the amended provision could not be entertained.

Conclusion: The constitutional challenge failed and the petition was liable to be dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The amendment challenge did not succeed, and the impugned petition was dismissed without costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A challenge to a statutory amendment cannot be maintained when the provision actually operative and governing the controversy is not the provision under challenge.

---