# M/S Anjali Exim Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 521
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-24
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 1001865 of 2013
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-anjali-exim-pvt-ltd-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50838
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law - Stamp Act, 1899 - Sections 9 &
47-A - Stamp-duty exemption granted
under Govt. Notification dt. 19.01.2005 for
setting up Agro/Food Park - Sale-deed
registered on 20.06.2006 pursuant to
exemption
-
Industrial
unit
not
established by petitioner - Proceedings
initiated under Section 47-A after lapse of
6 years - Held: Demand for stamp-duty
based on subsequent Govt. policy (G.O. dt.
21.08.2009) unsustainable - Duty payable
to be determined with reference to law as
on date of execution - No infirmity in
exemption - Invocation of Section 47-A
illegal and de hors the Act - Impugned
order quashed.

Held: Stamp duty liability is determined on date
of execution of instrument; subsequent change
in policy cannot retrospectively revoke a valid
exemption granted under Section 9 of the Act -
No authority under Section 47-A to reopen
exemption-based registrations.
522 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Petition Allowed.

Case law discussed:

## Text

9 All. M/S Anjali Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
521
date
of
execution
of
instrument.
Proposition
to
this
effect
has
been
consistently laid down by this Court in
various authorities including Shahid Ali vs
Commissioner Bareilly Division Bareilly
and others, reported in 2013 (6) ADJ 425
and Har Charan Lal Ice & Cold Storage
Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and others,
reported in 2013 (2) AWC 1731. Therefore,
the insistence of learned Standing Counsel
regarding remand is liable to be rejected,
also for the reason that if inspection is
carried out today, i.e. in the year 2023 that
would be wholly irrelevant for the purposes
of determination of stamp duty on the date
of execution of sale deed i.e. 2010.
Therefore, such spot inspection would
neither be of any significance nor relevant
for the purposes of deciding the matter.

18. The same view was also taken by
the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in its
judgment and order 13.4.2023 in Writ-C
No. 19644of 2016 (Raj Kumar vs. State Of
U.P. and 2 Others).

19. In view of above, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed.

20. The order dated 29.5.2015 passed
by
respondent
No.3-
Chief
Revenue
Controlling Authority, Prayagraj in Stamp
Appeal No.46 of 2012-13 and order dated
31.10.2012 passed by respondent no.2-
Additional
Collector
Finance
and
Revenue/Stamp
Collector,
Jhansi
are
hereby quashed by issuing a writ of
Certiorari.

21. A writ of Mandamus is also issued
to the effect that any amount deposited by
the petitioner either prior to filing of this
writ petition or in pursuance of any interim
order passed in the present case, shall be
refunded to the petitioner along with simple
interest at the rate of 6% per anum from the
date of its deposit till the date of actual
payment, within a period of three months,
on moving appropriate application by the
petitioner along with certified copy of this
order before the authority concerned.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 521
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-C No. 1001865 of 2013

M/S Anjali Exim Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Phool Chandra Mishra, Sachin Garg

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Stamp Act, 1899 - Sections 9 &
47-A - Stamp-duty exemption granted
under Govt. Notification dt. 19.01.2005 for
setting up Agro/Food Park - Sale-deed
registered on 20.06.2006 pursuant to
exemption
-
Industrial
unit
not
established by petitioner - Proceedings
initiated under Section 47-A after lapse of
6 years - Held: Demand for stamp-duty
based on subsequent Govt. policy (G.O. dt.
21.08.2009) unsustainable - Duty payable
to be determined with reference to law as
on date of execution - No infirmity in
exemption - Invocation of Section 47-A
illegal and de hors the Act - Impugned
order quashed.

Held: Stamp duty liability is determined on date
of execution of instrument; subsequent change
in policy cannot retrospectively revoke a valid
exemption granted under Section 9 of the Act -
No authority under Section 47-A to reopen
exemption-based registrations.
522 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Petition Allowed.

Case law discussed:

1. Shanti Bhushan (D) thr. Lrs. & ors. Vs St. of
U.P. & ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 489

2. Swedish Match AB Vs SEBI, (2004) 11 SCC
641

3. CIT Vs Ajax Products Ltd., 55 ITR 741

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sachin Garg, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner as also the learned Standing
Counsel for the respondents, and perused
the records.

2. The petitioner in the present writ
petition has assailed the order dated
26.11.2012
of
the
Prescribed
Authority/Asstt. Commissioner (Stamp),
Raebareli, under the Indian Stamps Act,
1899 (hereinafter referred as 'Act of 1899'),
whereby in exercise of powers under
section 47-A he has determined the stampduty payable on the sale-deed executed by
the petitioner on 20.06.2006 to be deficit in
stamps and thereby directed the petitioner
to pay an amount of Rs. 16,65,100.00
alongwith penalty of Rs. 3,67,330.00 and
interest
@
1.5%
per
month
from
20.06.2006.

3. The question which has been raised
by the petitioner in the present writ petition
is as to whether once on the basis of the
exemption
Notification
issued
under
Section 9 of the Act of 1899, stamp-duty
has been exempted and the instrument
registered, can by subsequent change in the
Government Policy, provision of section
47-A be invoked requiring the person to
pay stamp duty on the market value of the
property?

4. Brief facts of the case, as submitted
by the petitioner are that the Government of
India through Ministry of Food Processing
Industry had launched a scheme for
establishment of Green Field Agro Food
Park in the country during the 10th FiveYear-Plan with the object of providing
adequate infrastructure for Food Processing
Industry. The Government of Uttar Pradesh
also adopted the aforesaid policy and had
passed a notification dated 19.01.2005,
whereby they had decided to grant
exemption from stamp-duty as well as
exemption from registration-fees in respect
of purchase of land for setting up
Information Technology, Bio Technology
Business Process Outsourcing Unit, Call
Centers, Agriculture Processing Unit etc.,
which were being set up taking advantage
of the Green Field Agro Food Park Policy.

5. The petitioner being interested in
setting up Agro Food Park/Mega Food
Park, moved an application before the
Inspector
General
(Registration),
U.P.,
seeking exemption from stamp-duty and
registration fees for purchase of the said land.
The application of the petitioner was duly
processed and the General Manager, District
Industry Centre, Raebareli, by means of his
letter dated 18.04.2006 directed the Sub
Registrar, Maharajganj, Raebareli, to grant of
stamp-duty exemption in respect of land
areas purchased by the petitioner for setting
up the Agro Food Park/Mega Food Park.

6. In pursuance of the aforesaid
exemption from stamp duty granted to the
petitioner, sale deed was registered on
20.06.2006.
9 All. M/S Anjali Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
523

7. After execution of the sale deed the
petitioner did not proceed to utilise the said
land for setting up of the Agro-based
industry for which the concessions were
granted to him. The collector initiated
proceedings under section 47A of the
Indian Stamp Act 1899 on the ground that
the petitioner had failed to set up the
industrial undertaking. The exemption from
stamp duty was granted as per the policy of
the State government, and the petitioner not
having complied with his part of the
commitment, he would be liable to pay the
amount of stamp duty which was leviable
on registering of the said sale deed.

8. It has been submitted by the
counsel for the petitioner that the State
Government has subsequently issued a
Government
Order
dated
21.08.2009
incorporating certain new conditions in the
implementation of the scheme related to
setting up of new Food Processing
Industries, where in order to seek the
benefits. The applicants will now have to
give a bank guarantee or fixed deposit for
the amount equivalent to stamp duty which
would been leviable had the applicants not
been given the benefit of exemption under
the said policy. The purpose of requiring
the applicants to give the bank guarantee or
fixed deposit is to ensure that the applicants
after purchasing the land, proceed to set up
the industrial unit, failing which the said
bank guarantee or fixed deposit was liable
to be encashed. The said change in policy
ensured that the applicants after availing of
the concession in stamp duty with regard to
the registration of land, granted by the State
government would proceed to set up the
industrial unit.

9. The said Government Order is in the
form of a clarification to the previous
Government order dated 19.01.2005. It seems
that after selection of the prospective persons
seeking to avail the benefit of the Policy for
setting up of new industries, various benefits
and concessions were granted to them by the
State Government, but later on a number of
applicants who had shown keen interest and
even purchased land, taking advantage of
Policy of the State Government, never
established
the
industrial
undertaking
,
necessitating re-looking into entire policy by the
Government and consequently passing of the
Government Order dated 21.08.2009. In the
said government order, it was provided that
whenever such a matter comes up before the
State Government where a person wants to take
benefit of the Policy of the Government of India
as well as the State of Uttar Pradesh for setting
up of theAgro Food Park/Mega Food Park etc.,
the said application would be duly scrutinized
by the Industries Department and such
applicants would also be directed to give a
performance-guarantee to ensure that apart
from seeking benefits made available by the
State Government, they would also implement
and establish their Units in the State of Uttar
Pradesh. It was further provided that wherever
exemption in the stamp-duty is given, a bankguarantee would also be obtained for the same
amount and in case there is any violation of the
terms and conditions of the Policy, the State
Government would be at liberty to invoke the
said bank-guarantee.

10. In change in Government policy was
brought about to ensure setting up of a new
undertaking and in case they are not established
after purchase of the land, the State
Government would be at liberty to encash the
fixed deposit made available by the prospective
applicant seeking to set up the new Industry.

11. In pursuance of the aforesaid
Government Orders a notice under section
47-A of the Stamps Act was sent to the
petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner
524 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Stamps), Raebareli, directing him to showcause as to why deficiency in stamp-fees be
not recovered from him with regard to the
registration of sale-deed on 20.06.2006.
The petitioner duly responded to the said
show-cause notice and filed his objections.
He stated that the said sale-deed was
registered on the basis of the exemption
granted by the State Government in
pursuance
of
the
Notification
dated
19.01.2005 in terms of the letter dated
28.03.2006.

12. It was further submitted by him
that there is no infirmity in the exemption
of stamp-duty granted to the petitioner as
on the basis of the subsequent notification
neither has the initial Notification dated
19.01.2005 been superseded or taken back
nor any conditions exist for invocation of
the proceedings under section 47-A of the
Stamps Act 1899 and, consequently, the
order as proposed to be passed in the showcause notice could not be passed.

13. The Assistant Commissioner
(Stamps) duly considered and rejected the
objections raised by the petitioner and by
means of the impugned order 26.11.2012
directed the petitioner to deposit the
amount, equivalent to the valuation as per
the market-value of the land. In the said
order, it has been stated that the said land
was given to the petitioner in pursuance of
the Policy of the Government wherein the
petitioner was to set up a new undertaking
and only such undertakings were given
benefits of exemption of the stamp-duty,
who had agreed to set up new Industries in
pursuance of the Policy of the State
Government. The petitioner having not
complied with the directions of the State
Government and despite repeated letters no
Industrial Unit was established by him and
consequently by means of the impugned
order the petitioner was directed to pay the
full Stamp-duty, which he was liable to
liable to pay as if the exemption was not
granted to him.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the impugned order is
illegal and arbitrary and is without
jurisdiction as such an order could not have
been passed in exercise of its powers under
section 47-A of the Act of 1899. It has
further been submitted that the Rules and
conditions and provisions existing on the
date of execution of the document are the
only relevant factors, which could have
been taken into consideration while levying
stamp-duty on the instrument. Subsequent
changes and considerations occurring after
the execution of the said instrument cannot
be taken into account while passing an
order under section 47-A of the act of 1899
and hence the order is illegal and deserves
to be set aside.

15. In the present case it is stated that
on the date when the instrument was
registered, i.e. on 20.06.2006, there was a
valid order for exemption passed in favour
of the petitioner in pursuance of the
Government Notification dated 19.01.2005.
It is stated that neither the exemption
granted to the petitioner, nor the Policy of
the State Government dated 19.01.2005 has
been revoked and, consequently, the
impugned order is illegal and arbitrary. He
further submits that a bare reading of
section 47-A of the Act of 1899 would
indicate that the determination of the
stamp-duty has to be only with reference to
the provisions existing on the date of
execution of the said instrument, and
further there was no deficiency in the
stamp-duty paid by the petitioner on the
date of execution of the said document, as
the State Government had exempted the
9 All. M/S Anjali Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
525
stamp-duty in case of the petitioner, and,
consequently, even if there is a variation in
Government Policy subsequently, that shall
have no bearing or influence on the duty
paid by the petitioner at the time of
execution of the sale-deed.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has also relied on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Shanti
Bhushan (D) thr. Lr. and ors. v. State of
U.P. & ors., 2023 SCC Online SC 489,
wherein it is stated that Registering
Authority has to ascertain the correct
market-value on the date of execution of
the document. It is stated that on the date of
execution of the said document the
petitioner having a valid exemption letter,
which was duly honoured and accepted by
the respondents and consequently no
variation in the same is permissible and
consequently assailed the impugned order.
Lastly it was submitted that a perusal of the
subsequent Government order would also
indicate that provision has been made for
recovery of the amount, equivalent to the
stamp-duty, payable by the person seeking
benefit of the Policy of the Government for
setting up of a new Unit. The subsequent
Policy provides for submission of a Bank
Guarantee as a Fixed Deposit and in case
such a person does not fulfill the
conditions of the Policy and does not set
up the Fresh Unit, it was open for the
Government to invoke the bank-guarantee
and encash the Fixed Deposit, so as to
restitute themselves as if the stamp-duty
has in fact been paid. Even in the
subsequent Policies and Notifications
dated 21.08.2009 or 22.11.2007 it has not
been provided that resort can be had to
provisions of section 47-A of the Indian
Stamps Act 1899 to recover the deficit
stamp-duty paid on execution of such
instrument.

17. Learned Standing Counsel, on the
other hand, has opposed the writ petition.
He has submitted that the petitioner has
taken benefit of the Policy of the State
Government and obtained exemption from
stamp-duty while registering the said land,
which were for the object of setting up of a
new Unit. The petitioner himself has
violated the Policy of the State Government
and despite repeated reminders has not set
up a Unit and consequently it was open for
the State Government to withdraw the
benefit granted to him and, hence, he
supported the impugned order.

18. I have heard the counsels of the
parties and perused the record. From a
perusal of the Notification dated 19.01.2005
it is clear that all such persons who intended to
set up an Agriculture/Food related business
with regard to Food Processing etc. were given
the benefit of exemption from stamp-duty to
as to enable them to purchase land at a lower
cost, which policy was framed to promote
Industrialization in the State of U.P. The
petitioner intending to take benefit of the
policy of the State Government also made an
application,
and
after
scrutinizing
his
application and finding the same to be in order
exemption from stamp-duty was granted by
means of order dated 28.03.2006. It is after a
lapse of nearly six years that the State
Government realized that the petitioner has not
fulfilled his commitment and has not set up the
industrial Unit, consequently, proceedings
under section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act,
1899 were initiated and a notice was issued to
the petitioner on 01.06.2012 asking him to pay
the market-value of the stamp-duty with
regard to the sale-deed executed by him on
20.06.2006.

19. The petitioner has questioned the
very initiation of proceedings under section
47-A of the act of 1899 in the facts of the
526 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
present case. To answer the question as
raised in the present petition it is noticed
that as per section 47-A of the Act of 1899
power has been vested upon the Prescribed
Authority to require the person executing
the instrument for paying full stamp-duty
on the market-value of the property, as set
forth in the said instrument. The exercise
can be done immediately after presentation
of the said instrument for registration. It is
not the case of the respondents that on the
date of execution of the said instrument the
petitioner had not paid adequate stampduty. It is admitted that the petitioner was
exempted from payment of stamp-duty in
accordance to notification issued by the
State government in exercise of powers
under section 9 of the Indian Stamps Act
1899, where power has been reserved to the
Government to reduce or remit, whether
prospectively or retrospectively, in the
whole or any part of the territories under its
administration, the duties with which any
instruments or any particular class of
instruments, or any of the instruments
belonging to such class, or any instruments
when executed by or in favour of any
particular class of persons or by or in
favour of any members of such class, are
chargeable. The power accordingly is
vested with the State Government to reduce
or remit the stamp-duty as per section 9 of
the Act of 1899. The State Government had
invoked the provision of Section 9 of the
Act of 1899 while issuing the exemptionnotification dated 19.01.2005.

20. It is evident that the power of the
State Government under section 9-A is only
with regard to "reduce or remit" the stampduty, which was accordingly done when it
notified its intentions to reduce and exempt
the stamp-duty by means of Notification
dated 19.01.2005. There is no other order
which has been brought on record either by
the petitioner or by the respondents
cancelling, revoking or modifying the
remission of stamp-duty on the Units
established in pursuance of the Policy of
the State Government.

21. Considering the fact that the State
government had issued an order dated
28/03/2006 exempted the levying of Stamp
duty in case of the petitioner was setting up
the industrial unit in pursuance of the
policy of the State government, there was
no infirmity or deficiency in the stamp duty
paid by the petitioner on the date of its
registration. The Supreme Court in number
of cases has held that the relevant date for
the purposes of determining the stamp duty
payable on the instrument, is the date of its
execution. In the present case the sale deed
was executed on 20/06/2006 a valid
exemption order passed by the State
government was in existence. The Supreme
Court in the case of Shanti Bhushan(D)
Thr. Lr. and Others vs State of U.P. and
Others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 489 have
observed:-

?23.Hence, when a sale deed is
presented for registration, the registering
authority must ascertain the correct market
value of the property subject matter of the
document on the date of execution of the
document. The stamp duty is payable on the
basis of such market value and not on the
consideration mentioned in the document.
If the consideration mentioned is more than
the market value, the stamp duty will be
payable on the consideration shown.
Moreover, the market value mentioned in
the agreement for sale or the market value
prevailing on the date of the agreement or
the market value prevailing on the date on
which the bargain was struck is of no
relevance for deciding the stamp duty. The
relevant market value is the one which
9 All. M/S Anjali Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
527
prevails on the date of execution of the
conveyance. Therefore, we have no manner
of doubt that the appellants were under an
obligation to pay stamp duty calculated on
the market value of the sale deed property
on the date of execution of the sale deed.?

22. Considering the above facts and
arguments of the learned counsel for the
parties, I find force with the contention
raised by the petitioner that such an
exercise of power, as has been done in the
present case under section 47-A, could not
have been invoked against the petitioner, as
there was no infirmity with regard to the
stamp-duty leviable on the instrument on
the dates of its registration. The relevant
date to be considered for exercise of
powers under section 47-A is the date of
execution of instrument. The respondents
have also not demonstrated any infirmity in
exemption of the stamp-duty payable on
the sale-deed, which was registered on
20.06.2006. The cause of action, even
according to the respondents, arose only
subsequent to 20.06.2006, when after lapse
of a considerable period of time the
petitioner did not establish the Unit in
pursuance of the Policy of the State
Government.

23. The State Government, when
faced with the situation that intending
entrepreneurs who have taken benefit of the
Policy of the Food Processing Industry,
have purchased land, but subsequently
failed to set up the Industry, issued a
clarification by means of Notification dated
21.08.2009 and 12.11.2007 and introduced
strict guidelines for setting up of new
Industries by persons, who have taken
benefit of the Policy. The clarification is
clearly prospective in nature, as it is silent
about the action which would be taken
against person who has already taken
advantage of exemption-Notification, but
failed to set up the Industrial Unit.

24. The relevant fact in this case is, as
already provided by the State Government
in its Notification dated 21.08.2009 and
12.11.2007, where it is provided that in
case such persons have deposited Fixed
Deposit or Bank Guarantee, it was open for
the State Government to encash the same.
We do not find any provision by which the
stamp-duty, which was in fact leviable by
Notification dated 19.01.2005, but stood
exempted
by
a
valid
exemption
notification, can be recovered subsequently.
The exercise of power, as has been done in
the present case, is clearly de hors the
provisions of the Act and the Rules as well
as
the
Notification
issued
by
the
respondents itself.

25. Indian Stamps Act, 1989, being a
fiscal statute, the provisions thereof have to
be strictly interpreted. Supreme Court in
the case of Swedish Natch AB Vs. SEBI,
2004 (11) SCC 641 and CIT Vs. Ajax
Products Ltd., 55 ITR 741 has held that
while interpreting the provisions of fiscal
legislation courts should neither add nor
subtract a word from the provisions of
instant meaning of the sections. It may be
mentioned that the foremost principle of
interpretation of fiscal statutes in every
system of interpretation is the rule of strict
interpretation which provides that where
the words of the statute are absolutely clear
and unambiguous, recourse cannot be had
to the principles of interpretation other than
the literal rule.

26. Accordingly, while interpreting
such a statute, equitable considerations
cannot be applied. A taxing statute has to be
interpreted in accordance with what is
clearly
expressed
therein.
While
528 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
interpreting such a statute and determining
the liability to pay tax, the provisions are
required to be construed strictly. In other
words, the rule of literal construction must
be applied while interpreting a taxing
statute. It must be interpreted in terms of
the natural construction of the words used.
There is no scope to imply anything which
is not expressly provided. there is no scope
for application of equitable principles while
deciding levy of stamp duty. Present case
cannot be decided on the basis of equity
and this Court is of the considered view
that the provisions of Section 47-A of the
Stamp Act do not provide for levy of stamp
on the instruments which have previously
been exempted by valid notification of the
State Government under Section 9 of the
Act of 1989. Accordingly, the impugned
order is clearly illegal and arbitrary and
deserves to be set aside.

27. In the light of the above, the
impugned order dated 26.11.2012 is illegal
and arbitrary and, consequently, is set
aside. The writ petition is, accordingly,
allowed.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 528
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-C No. 1002134 of 2013

M/S Anjali Exim Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
P.C. Mishra, Sachin Garg

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Held:

Civil Law - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 47A - Stamp duty liability under Section 47-A of
the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 must be assessed
with reference to the date of execution of the
instrument. Where valid exemption from stamp
duty
was
granted
under
a
Government
Notification in force at the time of registration,
subsequent
policy
changes
cannot
retrospectively impose liability. The Prescribed
Authority acted without jurisdiction in invoking
Section 47-A years after execution, based solely
on the petitioner's failure to set up the proposed
industrial unit. Recovery could only be pursued
through the mechanism (e.g., bank guarantee)
provided in the subsequent policy, not by
reassessing stamp duty already exempted.

Writ petition allowed.

Case Law Discussed:

1. Shanti Bhushan (D) through L.Rs. & ors. Vs
St. of U.P. & ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 489

2. Swedish Match AB Vs SEBI, (2004) 11 SCC
641

3. CIT Vs Ajax Products Ltd., (1969) 55 ITR 741
(SC)

Key Legal Propositions:

•
Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act
empowers the Government to grant
exemption from stamp duty, which is
binding unless specifically revoked.

•
Section
47-A
cannot
be
invoked
retrospectively to recover stamp duty
from exempted transactions based on
later policy clarifications.

•
Fiscal statutes must be interpreted
strictly - there is no scope for equitable
considerations
or
retrospective
impositions unless clearly legislated.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)