Retrospective sales tax rulemaking upheld where statute authorised it, but eligibility still depended on meeting cut-off date conditions.

Where the governing statute expressly authorises retrospective rule-making for incentive schemes, a retrospective amendment defining "units in pipeline" is valid and not ultra vires for lack of power. Eligibility for the Haryana sales tax concession still depends on satisfying the defined conditions on the relevant cut-off date; on the facts, the applicant obtained industrial registration only after that date and completed substantial setup steps later, so it did not qualify as a "unit in pipeline." The challenge to the amended definition therefore failed and the claim for industrial tax concession was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amendment to rule 28C(3)(o) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975, defining "units in pipeline" with retrospective effect, was without statutory authority or ultra vires. (ii) Whether the petitioner satisfied the conditions of a "unit in pipeline" as on the relevant cut-off date and was entitled to tax concession.

Issue (i): Whether the amendment to rule 28C(3)(o) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975, defining "units in pipeline" with retrospective effect, was without statutory authority or ultra vires.

Analysis: Section 64(2A) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 expressly empowered the rule-making authority to give retrospective effect to rules framed for the incentive policy and specifically declared that rules 28A, 28B and 28C would operate retrospectively from the notified dates. The challenge based on want of power to enact retrospective subordinate legislation therefore failed.

Conclusion: The retrospective amendment was within statutory power and was not ultra vires on the ground of lack of authority.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner satisfied the conditions of a "unit in pipeline" as on the relevant cut-off date and was entitled to tax concession.

Analysis: The definition inserted by rule 28C(3)(o) required, among other things, registration with the Department of Industries and other steps completed by 30 April 2000. The petitioner obtained registration only after the cut-off date and substantial steps towards setting up the unit were taken thereafter. On these facts, the petitioner did not fall within the category of a "unit in pipeline" and the retrospective definition did not operate prejudicially against a person otherwise eligible on the relevant date.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to be treated as a "unit in pipeline" and was not eligible for the concession.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the amended definition failed, the rejection of the claim for industrial tax concession was upheld, and the writ petitions were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute expressly authorises retrospective rule-making for incentive schemes, a retrospective definition is valid, and a claimant must independently satisfy the defined eligibility conditions on the relevant cut-off date to obtain the concession.

---