Consent-based rehabilitation relief: a direction merely to consider tax waiver does not compel grant of concession.

Under Section 19 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, income-tax concessions in a rehabilitation scheme bind the concerned authority only where consent is given. A clause directing the authority merely "to consider" income-tax relief does not create a mandate to grant waiver or related benefits, especially where the Revenue objected at the scheme-framing stage and did not agree to the concession. On that basis, the claimed income-tax relief and carry-forward benefit were not available to the petitioner, and the refusal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to income-tax relief and carry-forward of losses under the sanctioned rehabilitation scheme despite the Revenue's objection and the use of the expression "to consider" in the scheme.

Analysis: The scheme under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 contemplated financial assistance or concessions only where the concerned authority gave consent under Section 19. The Revenue had objected at the stage of framing the scheme, and the scheme itself showed that the words "to consider" were used in relation to the income-tax relief, indicating no mandate to grant the concession. The petitioner's reliance on precedents was distinguished because, on the facts, the Revenue had not consented to the waiver and the scheme did not impose a binding direction to grant it.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the claimed income-tax waiver or related relief, and the decision rejecting the request was upheld against the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 19 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, a concession or waiver in a rehabilitation scheme binds the concerned authority only upon its consent, and a direction merely "to consider" relief does not amount to a mandate to grant it.

---