Input tax credit benefit limited to voluntarily registered dealers; prior registrants cannot claim the extended pre-registration relief.

Section 15B of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act was a special benefit confined to unregistered dealers who voluntarily applied for registration within the notified period, allowing registration from the commencement of business and corresponding input tax credit. A dealer already registered before the provision came into force was not similarly situated to the intended beneficiaries and could not claim the extended credit for the pre-registration period. The legislative cut-off date in a beneficial scheme was permissible absent proof of arbitrariness, and no material was shown to establish constitutional discrimination under Article 14. The petitioner therefore failed to obtain the extended benefit.

---

---

Issues: Whether a dealer who had already obtained registration before the relevant date could claim input tax credit for the period prior to registration under Section 15B of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, and whether the restriction of that benefit to dealers who voluntarily applied for registration during the specified period was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Section 15B was a special provision intended for dealers who were unregistered and who voluntarily applied for registration during the notified period. The benefit of getting registration from the date of commencement of business and claiming input tax credit from that date was confined to that class alone. A challenge on discrimination could succeed only if the petitioner was similarly situated to the class treated beneficially by the provision. The petitioner had already obtained registration long before Section 15B came into force and therefore did not stand on the same footing as the intended beneficiaries. The legislature was also entitled to prescribe a cut-off date in a beneficial scheme, and such classification would not be interfered with unless shown to be arbitrary. No material was produced to show that the chosen date was arbitrary.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to claim the extended benefit under Section 15B, and the challenge based on discrimination and arbitrariness failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected because the statutory benefit was confined to a distinct class of unregistered dealers, and the petitioner did not establish any constitutional infirmity in the legislative classification or cut-off date.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory benefit confined to a specified class and period is valid if the claimant is not similarly situated to the beneficiaries and the prescribed cut-off date is not shown to be arbitrary.

---