TMI Blog1995 (12) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r s application for exemption was rejected on the ground that he has not submitted a registered lease deed in respect of the unit for which he was claiming exemption nor did he furnish the proof about the registration under the Factories Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that these requirements are directory and not mandatory, and he has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Hindustan Televisions v. State of U.P. 1995 UPTC 516 and also on the decision of this Court in the case of Sahu Stone Crushing Industries v. Divisional Level Committee [1995] 98 STC 66; 1994 UPTC 1. As regards these decisions we have been informed that a similar judgment of this Court in Saraswati Packing Industries v. State of U.P. 1994 UP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court which are binding on us under article 141 of the Constitution, we have to hold that the judgments of this Court in the case of Amit Plastic Industry [1995] 96 STC 538 and Morgardshammar India Limited [1996] 101 STC 3 are no longer good law. 5.. In the present case it is admitted that there was no registered lease deed for seven years or more. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the word registered is not to be found in section 4-A. In this connection it may be pointed out that section 107 of Transfer of Property Act states that a lease deed of immovable property for more than one year can only be made by a registered document. Thus, registration is a necessary requirement fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons in AIR 1935 SC 33 (Sic); AIR 1955 SC 84 (State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh Pratap Singh), [1955] 6 STC 446 (SC); AIR 1955 SC 661 (Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. State of Bihar), (1963) 48 ITR 59 (SC); AIR 1963 SC 1448 (Commissioner of Income-tax v. Amarchand N. Shroff), AIR 1969 SC 568 (Sic); AIR 1973 SC 1016 (Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vadilal Lallubhai), and AIR 1985 SC 1 (Sital Prasad Saxena v. Union of India). In our opinion the said decisions have no application to the present case. It may be noted that U.P. Act No. 28 of 1991 amended section 4-A retrospectively from 1983. Hence we have to deem it that the amended law existed in 1983. A retrospective amendment amounts to a legal fiction, and regarding legal fictions it has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
