Fiscal exemption under a tax notification cannot be enlarged by mandamus when the underlying policy is not self-executing.

Exemption under Section 4-A of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 had to operate strictly in accordance with the State notification, and the Court found no legal basis to compel enhancement of the notified 100% benefit to 200%. The Industrial Policy of 1994 was treated as a policy statement indicating possible special incentives on a case-by-case basis, not a self-executing entitlement to an increased exemption. The Court also noted that the petitioner had already enjoyed the notified exemption and that the challenge, raised after the exemption period had expired, was barred by laches. The writ petition therefore failed, and the notification remained effective as issued.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to a mandamus directing grant of 200% exemption on fixed capital investment and modification of the notification dated 19.7.1996 on the basis of the Industrial Policy of 1994.

Analysis: Exemption under Section 4-A of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 is available only in accordance with the notification issued by the State Government. The notification in question granted 100% exemption and the Court found no legal basis to compel the State to enlarge that benefit to 200%. The Industrial Policy of 1994, as relied upon, was treated as a policy statement proposing special incentives on a case-to-case basis and not as a self-executing grant of 200% exemption. The Court also held that the petitioner had claimed and enjoyed exemption under the notification for years and the challenge raised after expiry of the exemption period was barred by laches. The precedent relating to a binding cabinet-approved policy was held distinguishable.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to 200% exemption or to modification of the notification, and the writ petition failed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the exemption notification and the demand for enhanced fiscal benefit were rejected, leaving the statutory exemption as granted under the notification intact.

Ratio Decidendi: Where exemption is governed by a notification issued under a taxing statute, the Court cannot mandate a greater fiscal concession than what the notification itself grants, especially when the relied-upon policy is only a non-self-executing proposal and the claim is stale.

---