Retrospective curtailment of exemption invalid where delegated power did not expressly allow withdrawal or added conditions.

A delegated exemption notification cannot retrospectively add conditions that narrow an accrued sales tax exemption unless the enabling statute expressly authorises such withdrawal or modification. The court held that a later condition requiring the goods to have suffered Central Sales Tax could not be imposed with retrospective effect, so the notification was ultra vires and invalid to that extent. On unjust enrichment, the court declined to impose a blanket bar on refund or recovery claims and left the competent authorities to deal with those matters in accordance with law. The impugned notification was struck down to the extent of the retrospective curtailment, and related orders were set aside where they depended on it.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned notification could validly impose retrospective conditions curtailing the exemption granted on the last purchase of waste paper, paper board and old or used bottles; (ii) Whether any refund arising from invalidation of the notification would be governed by the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned notification could validly impose retrospective conditions curtailing the exemption granted on the last purchase of waste paper, paper board and old or used bottles.

Analysis: The power to grant exemption prospectively or retrospectively under the governing statutes did not carry with it an implied power to withdraw, vary or burden an existing exemption with retrospective effect unless such power was expressly conferred. The notification issued later sought to add a condition that the goods must have suffered tax under the Central Sales Tax regime, thereby narrowing the scope of the earlier exemption with retrospective effect. Exemption notifications are to be construed on their plain language, and neither assumed intention nor supposed legislative object can be used to add restrictive conditions where none existed in the text.

Conclusion: The retrospective condition was invalid and the impugned notification was ultra vires the enabling provisions.

Issue (ii): Whether any refund arising from invalidation of the notification would be governed by the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The objection based on unjust enrichment was not accepted as a basis to pre-empt statutory adjudication. The declaration of invalidity did not bar the authorities from examining recovery or refund claims in accordance with law, but the Court declined to issue a blanket restraint on the competent authority's powers. The issue was therefore treated only to the extent necessary for the relief granted in the writ petitions.

Conclusion: No blanket bar was granted on application of unjust enrichment, but the authorities were left to proceed according to law.

Final Conclusion: The impugned notification was struck down to the extent it retrospectively narrowed the exemption, assessment orders relying on it were set aside where applicable, and the connected matters were disposed of with directions to proceed in conformity with the declaration of invalidity.

Ratio Decidendi: A delegated exemption notification cannot be retrospectively varied so as to curtail an accrued fiscal exemption unless the statute expressly authorises such retrospective withdrawal or modification.

---