Retrospective deletion cannot defeat accrued sales tax exemption rights; dealer's claim was remitted for fresh reconsideration.

The sales tax exemption claim under the Haryana industrial incentive scheme had to be reconsidered because the earlier ruling had already held that the retrospective deletion of Note 2 to Schedule III could not destroy rights already accrued to eligible industrial units. Applying that binding principle, the Court did not decide whether the products were pesticides or chemicals. The dealer's entitlement was therefore directed to be examined afresh in accordance with the earlier decision, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dealer's entitlement to sales tax exemption had to be reconsidered in light of the earlier decision holding that the retrospective deletion of Note 2 to Schedule III could not take away rights already conferred.

Analysis: The dispute arose under the industrial incentive scheme embodied in Rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975, read with the negative list in Entry 43 of Schedule III. The earlier precedent had already determined that Note 2, introduced through delegated legislation under Section 64 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, could not operate retrospectively to destroy rights that had accrued to eligible industrial units. In view of that binding principle, and since the Court was not required to decide whether the units manufactured were pesticides or chemicals, the proper course was to apply the earlier ruling and direct reconsideration of the dealer's claim.

Conclusion: The dealer was entitled to fresh consideration of the exemption claim in accordance with the earlier decision, and the matter was remitted for that purpose.

---