Retrospective withdrawal of rebate notifications cannot defeat accrued industrial entitlements absent express authority or proven supervening public interest.

A rebate notification under the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act could be rescinded prospectively, but not so as to extinguish accrued entitlements of industrial units that had already commenced production and acted on the original promise. The text states that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, and its Uttar Pradesh counterpart, do not authorise retrospective deprivation of a rebate already earned, absent express language. It also states that supervening public interest was not established on the material cited, so the rebate remained available for the balance of the original eligibility period, subject to verification of refund claims and the bar of unjust enrichment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rescission of the rebate notification could operate retrospectively so as to deny rebate to industrial units that had already commenced commercial production before the rescinding notification, and whether the State had established supervening public interest to justify such withdrawal.

Analysis: The rebate scheme under Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 permitted grant of rebate by notification, but did not confer any express power to withdraw or rescind that rebate with effect from a prior date. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and the pari materia provision in the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904, could not be read to authorise retrospective deprivation of a rebate already promised and acted upon. The rescinding notification itself operated from its own date and contained no language showing an intent to defeat rights that had already accrued to units established and functioning under the earlier notification. The State's reliance on supervening public interest was also rejected, as the reasons advanced, including the earlier High Court ruling, logistical difficulty, and possible future revenue loss, did not show an overwhelming change in circumstances sufficient to displace the promise made to units that had already set up and commenced production. The industrial units had acted on the original notification and acquired an enforceable entitlement for the specified rebate period.

Conclusion: The rescinding notification could not be applied retrospectively against the eligible industrial units that had commenced production before its issuance, and the rebate remained available to them for the balance of the original eligibility period.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, and the respondents retained entitlement to rebate for the relevant period, subject to verification of refund claims in accordance with law and the bar of unjust enrichment.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of express authority, a rebate notification may be rescinded prospectively but cannot be used to extinguish accrued entitlements of units that have already acted upon the original promise, unless overwhelming supervening public interest is proved on strict and specific material.

---