Page 63 - GSTL_16 April 2020_Vol 35_Part 3

2020 ] PRINCE SPINTEX PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 277
provisions and to provide against such distortions and abuses. In-
deed, howsoever great may be the care bestowed on its framing, it is
difficult to conceive of a legislation which is not capable of being
abused by perverted human ingenuity. The Court must therefore ad-
judge the constitutionality of such legislation by the generality of its
provisions and not by its crudities or inequities or by the possibilities
of abuse of any of its provisions. If any crudities, inequities or possi-
bilities of abuse come to light, the legislature can always step in and
enact suitable amendatory legislation. That is the essence of pragmat-
ic approach which must guide and inspire the legislature in dealing
with complex economic issues.”
10. In case of Kasinka Trading (supra), the Union Government had granted
exemption under a notification dated 15-3-1979 on customs duty on import
of resin which is a raw material used for manufacturing of PVC. The notifi-
cation provided that the same shall be in force upto and inclusive of 31-3-
1981. However, before expiry of the said time mentioned in the notification,
the Government issued another notification on 16-10-1980 withdrawing the
exemption and providing that in public interest it was necessary that the
import of resin could invite duty at the rate of 4% ad valorem. This was done
with a view to equalising the sale prices of indigenous and imported mate-
rials. The notification was challenged by the importers inter alia on the
ground that it breached the principle of promissory estoppel. Rejecting the
challenge, the Supreme Court observed that the doctrine of promissory es-
toppel is part of the administrative law and is applicable against the Gov-
ernment also to prevent fraud and injustice and such doctrine must yield
when the equity so demands if it can be shown having regard to the facts
and circumstances of the case that it would be inequitable to hold the public
authority to its promise, assurance or representation. It was observed that
an exemption notification does not make the items which are subject to levy
of customs duty as not leviable. It only suspends the levy and collection of
customs duty wholly or partly as the case may be. Under section 25 of the
Customs Act, if the Government had the power to grant exemption it also
had the power to withdraw the same.
11. In case of Kothari Industrial Corporation (supra), the court held that the
Government had the power to determine what should be the policy for
grant or refusal of concessional power to different units. In case of Kanak
Exports (supra), the court observed that an incentive scheme promulgated
by the Government is in the nature of concession or incentive which is a
privilege of the Government and it is for the Government to take such a de-
cision as to grant or not.
12. As noted, Section 35AC recognizes the deduction in case of expendi-
ture by an assessee by way of payment to the approved institutions carry-
ing out eligible project or the scheme or payment made directly on such eli-
gible project or scheme. As per Explanation clause (b), eligible project or
scheme would be a project or scheme for promoting the social and econom-
ic welfare or the uplift of public as the Central Government may notify. The
deduction was therefore not confined to the healthcare service which the
petitioner is dispensing and would cover range of projects and schemes for
promoting social and economic welfare or the uplift of the public as may be
notified. In plain terms, sub-section (7) of section 35AC provided for a ter-
minal point for granting such benefit. After 1-4-2017 the legislature desired
to withdraw such deduction. Any expenditure after such date would no
longer be an eligible deduction. The provision applies prospectively. The
Union legislature was competent to introduce such amendment. We do not
find merits in the petition.”
GST LAW TIMES  16th April 2020  183