Retrospective composition scheme extension cannot be denied for prior assessment completion or delayed deposit.

A beneficial composition scheme could not be denied merely because assessment had already been completed, where the scheme text expressly covered eligible claims even during pending appeal proceedings and did not exclude concluded assessments. The authority was not permitted to add an unstated restriction to the scheme. The benefit also could not be refused on the ground that some tax deposits were made after the original scheme period, because the scheme was later extended retrospectively and its coverage had to be read in light of that extension. The rejection was therefore set aside and the scheme benefit directed to be granted for the relevant years.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the composition scheme despite the assessment having already been framed. (ii) Whether the benefit could be denied on the ground that the tax amounts were deposited after the original period of the scheme, when the scheme was subsequently extended with retrospective effect.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the composition scheme despite the assessment having already been framed.

Analysis: The scheme expressly contemplated availability of the benefit even where appeal proceedings were pending. On that construction, the mere fact that assessment had been framed could not, by itself, justify rejection of the application. The relevant clauses of the scheme showed that eligible traders and eligible transactions were not excluded merely because assessment proceedings had concluded, and the authority could not read into the scheme an additional restriction not found in its text. Denial of the benefit solely on the ground that assessment was completed was therefore inconsistent with the scheme.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to claim the benefit of the composition scheme notwithstanding prior framing of assessment.

Issue (ii): Whether the benefit could be denied on the ground that the tax amounts were deposited after the original period of the scheme, when the scheme was subsequently extended with retrospective effect.

Analysis: The scheme was originally introduced for a limited period and was later extended. The extension operated retrospectively, and the scheme's temporal operation had to be read in light of that extension. Once the petitioner applied within the operative framework of the scheme and deposited the requisite amounts for the covered periods, the benefit could not be denied merely because part of the deposit was made after the first expiry date. The authority's contrary view was held to be unsustainable.

Conclusion: The petitioner could not be denied the scheme benefit on the ground of delayed deposit, because the retrospective extension brought the case within the scheme.

Final Conclusion: The impugned rejection was set aside and the petitioner was held entitled to the composition scheme benefit for the relevant years, with a direction to grant the benefit within the time fixed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A public authority administering a beneficial fiscal scheme must apply its text fairly and cannot deny eligibility by adding unstated restrictions or by ignoring a retrospective extension that brings the claim within the scheme's coverage.

---