TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 983. Therefore, the provision having been statutorily made retrospective shall apply with effect from October 12, 1983. The Legislature is within its legislative competence and legislative power to make a law either prospective or retrospective. When consciously a provision has been retrospectively made effective, the fact that the law came subsequently making retrospective effect shall not take out the petitioner's case out of its ambit. In view of the law as deemed to exist with effect from 12th of October, 1983 the new unit is entitled for the actual benefit from the date when registration is made effective, the eligibility certificate cannot be faulted. W.P. dismissed. - Writ Tax No. 833 of 1993 - - - Dated:- 27-3-2012 - ASHOK BH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 11th of March, 1993, against which order the petitioner has come up in the present writ petition. A counter-affidavit as well as a supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed by the State supporting the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order referred to the notification dated 26th of December, 1985, issued by the State Government in exercise of power under section 4A of the Act and has placed reliance on the paragraph (1) of the notification which defined the industrial unit . The said paragraph of the notification is as follows: (1) 'Industrial unit' means an industrial unit holding permanent registration with the Directorate of Industries, Uttar Pradesh, as a small, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that the provisions of section 4A were amended by the U.P. Act No. 28 of 1991 with effect from October 12, 1983, under which where unit has made an application for registration under the Factories Act, 1948 and registration is granted on a later date, the new unit shall be deemed for entitlement to the facility of exemption for part of the period which shall be computed from the date such registration becomes effective. The learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder submits that the said provision could not be applied on the petitioner since the petitioner had already applied for registration much before the above amendment came in to effect by the U.P. Act No. 28 of 1991. We have considered the submissions of learned couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1990,- (a) which is licensed or in respect whereof a letter of intent has been issued or which is registered, permanently or otherwise by the appropriate authority in accordance with any law for the time being in force relating to licensing or registration of industrial undertakings; (b)(i) which is registered under the Factories Act, 1948; or (ii) an application for registration in respect whereof has been made under that Act; or (iii) after making an application for a term loan from the Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation or a Scheduled Commercial Bank whether such term loan is sanctioned and disbursed before or after the undertaking is set-up (where the capital investment in the undertaking does not exceed three lakh rupees) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which has been given to the petitioner from October 15, 1988 cannot be said to be arbitrary. The submission of the petitioner is that the said provision was not available at the time when he applied for grant of eligibility certificate as well as for registration, hence the said provision cannot be applied on the petitioner. The U.P. Act No. 28 of 1991 reproduced above clearly mentions that the Explanation shall be substituted and be deemed to have been substituted on October 12, 1983. Therefore, the provision having been statutorily made retrospective shall apply with effect from October 12, 1983. The Legislature is within its legislative competence and legislative power to make a law either prospective or retrospective. When consciously ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
