Incentive exemption under earlier sales tax rule remained available where later rule's proviso preserved eligibility for qualifying industrial units.

Where a later incentive rule contained a proviso expressly extending the earlier beneficial rule to units satisfying specified effective steps, an exemption claim could not be rejected solely because the later rule had come into force; the claim remained examinable under the earlier rule. The unit had commenced commercial production before the later rule's insertion and satisfied the proviso conditions, so Rule 28A applied. The factual objection that no land had been purchased also failed, because the record, including the appellate finding and departmental report, showed prior purchase of the land and satisfaction of the remaining conditions. The exemption entitlement was therefore affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee's exemption application was to be considered under Rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 despite the insertion and operation of Rule 28B. (ii) Whether the requirement of prior purchase or lease of land, as a condition under the proviso to Rule 28B(3)(a), was satisfied.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee's exemption application was to be considered under Rule 28A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 despite the insertion and operation of Rule 28B.

Analysis: Rule 28A defined the operative period for incentive eligibility, and the proviso to Rule 28B(3)(a) extended the benefit of Rule 28A to industrial units that had fulfilled all three stipulated effective steps. The mere fact that Rule 28B was inserted and made effective from an earlier date did not, by itself, shift every pending claim into the negative list. To do so would render the proviso redundant. Since the unit had started commercial production before the insertion of Rule 28B and the conditions in the proviso stood satisfied, the exemption claim remained examinable under Rule 28A.

Conclusion: The exemption application was correctly treated under Rule 28A, and the claim was not barred merely because Rule 28B had come into force.

Issue (ii): Whether the requirement of prior purchase or lease of land, as a condition under the proviso to Rule 28B(3)(a), was satisfied.

Analysis: The record showed that the land for the unit had already been purchased, and this factual position was accepted before the appellate authority and supported by the departmental report. The authority also noted satisfaction of the other stipulated conditions. The objection that no land had been purchased was therefore contrary to the record.

Conclusion: The land condition under the proviso to Rule 28B(3)(a) was satisfied.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the grant of exemption failed, and the assessee's entitlement to incentive relief under Rule 28A stood affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a proviso to a later incentive rule expressly extends the earlier beneficial rule to units satisfying specified effective steps, the claim must be examined under the earlier rule and cannot be rejected solely by reference to the later rule's negative list.

---