Barin Ghosh, C. J.
1.Vires of Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1991 is under challenge in this writ petition. We do not think that for the purpose of the present writ petition, it is at all necessary for us to go into the question of validity of the said Section of the said Act.
2. Facts of the case are that Petitioner established an industry in the District of Nainital. In the matter of establishment of the said industry, Petitioner invested a sum more than `3 lacs. The said industry commenced production in August 1984. There appears to be no dispute to the aforementioned facts. On 29th January 1985, the State Government exercised power u/s 4-A of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 and issued a notification to that effect. The object of the said notification was to grant sales tax exemption to the industries mentioned therein. It was provided that exemption granted by the said notification would be available to a new unit, provided the same has been established in the locations mentioned in the said notification. District Nainital was one of the locations mentioned in the said notification. It was stated that such a Unit, if starting production on or after 1st October 1982 but not later than 31st March 1990, shall be entitled to such exemption. It was indicated in the notification that in case capital investment in the said unit exceeds ` 3 lacs, the exemption shall be for a period of seven years.
3. On 26th December 1985, another notification was issued to the same effect but in relation to many other areas. The said notification too granted similar benefits to industrial units referred to above situate in the District Nainital.
4. In view of the said notifications, Petitioner started getting the advantage of exemption accorded thereby. Petitioner was granted such exemption for five years. It was, however, not given such exemption for the remaining two years.
5. The reason, therefore, as it appears, is Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1991, which received assent of the Governor of the State on 20th August, 1991 and was published in U.P. Gazette, Extra, Part 1, Section (ka) on 21st August 1991. By Section 30 of the said Act, the words "1st October 1982" and "31st March 1990" occurring in the said notifications dated 29th January 1985 and 26th December 1985 were substituted by the words "29th January 1985" and "26th December 1985". In terms thereof, if the new unit of the Petitioner commenced production after 29th January 1985 but before 26th December 1985, Petitioner would be entitled to seven years'' exemption. Since the industry established by the Petitioner commenced production in August 1984, Respondents refused to give exemption to the Petitioner for two years after having had given exemption for five years on the ground that by reason of Section 30 of the said Act, there has been a substitution which would relate back to the date of notification itself. If that logic is correct, then the Petitioner is not entitled to any exemption, whatsoever. Still then, admittedly, five years'' exemption was given to the Petitioner but why, has not been explained?
6. It is true that when the word "substituted" was used in the statute, the same would relate back to the date when the notifications in question were made and published. The amendment, therefore, would have retrospective effect. However, until the said Act was made, which was made only on 21st August 1991, there was no substitution in any of the said notifications and, accordingly, those notifications with full force were applicable until 20th August 1991. On and from 21st August 1985, it would be deemed that the Petitioner became disentitled to any exemption, whatsoever, but until 20th August 1991 it was entitled to the exemption granted by the notifications dated 29th January 1985 and 26th December 1985.
7. We, accordingly, dispose of this writ petition by declaring that the Petitioner ceased to be entitled to exemption under the said notifications dated 29th January 1985 and 26th December 1985 on and from 21st August 1991 and was entitled to exemption under the said notifications until 20th August 1985.tion for
