Page 61 - GSTL_16 April 2020_Vol 35_Part 3

2020 ] PRINCE SPINTEX PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 275
uneconomical and further that many persons took full advantage of the ex-
emption. The Court held that the facts of the economic situation explained
in the judgment rendered in Kasinka Trading case, (supra) were not contra-
vened nor was it alleged that public interest did not call for supersession of
the exemption notification. The Court also examined the question whether
the fact that the Notification dated 15-3-1979 mentioned the period during
which it was to remain in force would make any difference to the situation.
The Court then held that :
“7. .... Once public interest is accepted as the superior equity which
can override individual equity, the principles should be applicable
even in cases where a period has been indicated.”
(emphasis supplied)
109. Therefore, it cannot be denied that the Government has a right to
amend, modify or even rescind a particular scheme. It is well settled that in
complex economic matters every decision is necessarily empiric and it is
based on experimentation or what one may call trial and error method and
therefore, its validity cannot be tested on any rigid prior considerations or
on the application of any straitjacket formula. In Balco Employees’ Union v.
Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333, the Supreme Court held that laws, includ-
ing executive action relating to economic activities should viewed with
greater latitude than laws touching civil rights such as freedom of speech,
religion, etc. that the legislature should be allowed some play in the joints
because it has to deal with complex problems which do not admit of solu-
tion through any doctrine or straitjacket formula and this particularly true
in case of legislation dealing with economic matters, where having regard
to the nature of the problems greater latitude require to be allowed to the
legislature. The question, however, is as to whether it can be done retro-
spectively, thereby taking away some right that had accrued in favour of
another person?”
4.8 The decision of this court in Prashanti Medical Services and Research
Foundation v. Union of India rendered on 14-9-2017 in Special Civil Application
No. 7558 of 2017 was relied upon, wherein it has been held thus :-
“8. In plain terms, thus, this provision discontinued the deduction availa-
ble under section 35AC from the assessment year commencing on or after
1-4-2018. In other words, any expenditure incurred after 1-4-2017 would no
longer be eligible for deduction under the said section. The fact that the par-
liament had the competence to enact the said provision has nowhere been
disputed before us. It is not even the stand of the petitioner that the parlia-
ment which granted the deduction could not have withdrawn it. In plain
terms, a deduction is in the nature of waiver to a limited extent from pay-
ment of tax. In absence of such a deduction, the assessee incurring such ex-
penditure would have to account for the full amount to tax. In order to en-
courage donations for or direct expenditure in certain approved projects or
schemes meant for promoting social and economic welfare or the uplift of
the public, the said provision was introduced by the legislature. If at a later
point of time, the Union legislature in its wisdom was of the opinion that
such benefit should no longer be granted, it is always open for the Parlia-
ment to withdraw the deduction by framing necessary legislation. This
provision in the strict sense of the term is to have prospective effect. It may
have effect on projects and schemes which are in pipeline and in that sense
may affect the pending or existing projects. Nevertheless, the withdrawal of
the deduction is from a prospective date. In that view of the matter, it is
possible that some of the institutions, projects or schemes may be adversely

GST LAW TIMES  16th April 2020  181