S.E.B.I. Versus Alliance Finstock Ltd. & ORS. Etc. Etc.

[2015] 10 S.C.R. 145 S.E.B.I.

v.

ALLIANCE FINSTOCK LTD. & ORS. ETC. ETC.

(Civil Appeal No. 4493 of 2006) NOVEMBER 03, 2015 [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] .

Securities & Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992 - Schepu·le Ill c Paragraph 4 - Stock brokers convert their individual! partnership membership into a corporate entity prior to April 01, 1997 - Entitlement to fee continuity benefit- Held: Stock brokers entitled to the benefits <?f the continuity in terms of paragraph 4 of Schedule Ill of the Regulations - SEB/ en-ed D in denying the stock brokers the benefit of fee continuity. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 Para 4 of Schedule Ill to the Securities & Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and SubBrokers) Regulations, 1992 was no doubt inserted through an amendment with effect from 21.1.

1998 but it does not disclose, either explicitly or even by necessary implication, that although possessing the required F qualifications, a corporate entity formed earlier to 21.1.1998 would not be exempted from payment of fee for the period for which the erstwhile individual or partnership member has already paid the fees. In respect of a legislation of fiscal character such as the instant G provision which relates to fees, it will not be proper or permissible to read into or delete words which do not exist in the provision. The explanation to para 4 introduced with effect from 20.2.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1 O S.C.R.

A deeming fiction that in the case of conversion of entities having individual or partnership membership card into a corporate entity, the corporate entity shall be deemed to be a continuation of the entity in respect of collection of fees from the converted corporate entity. Further, an B embargo has been created against collection of fees again from the converted corporate entity. This explanation is statutory in nature and like para 4 it also does not restrict the benefits of conversion to entities converted on or after any particular date. The C explanation does not talk of making any refund nor does it render the initial levy or assessment of fee as bad but forbids the collection of such fees if the converted corporate entity is entitled to fee continuation benefit in 0 terms of paragraph 4 of Schedule Ill to the Regulations.

[Para 18] [160-D-H; 161-A-C] 1.2 The legislative intention is to put an embargo on collection in f_uture, in case the converted corporate entity is found entitled to the benefits of fee continuity. E Such embargo is clearly to operate prospectively even if there existed some kind of liability in the past on account of fees leviable prior to· insertion of paragraph 4 of Schedule Ill to the Regulations. In any cas-e the F rationale in not permitting retrospective operation of laws is only to ensure that subjects are not adversely affected by creation of legal liabilities and obligations for a period already bygone. In the instant case the provisions do not create any obligation or liability.

They G only confer benefits by way of fee continuity on account of fees already paid by the earlier entity before its conversion into a new corporate entity. Even if the test of fairness is applied, no exception can be taken to extention of the benefit of fee exemption as provided by H the relevant provision in the Regulations.

S.E.B.I. v. ALLIANCE FINSTOCK LTD.

policy behind grant of benefits is to encourage A corporatization of individual or partnership members of a stock exchange, the action of extending such benefits without any curb on the basis of date of conversions cannot be held as unfair. [Para 19, 20] [161-D-H; 132-A] K Narayanan v. State of Kamataka 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 105: 1994 Supp. (1) sec 44; Mohd. Rashid Ahmad v. State ofU.P. 1979 (2) SCR 826: (1979) 1 SCC 596; Mahadeo/a/ Kanodia v. The Administrator General of West Bengal (1960) 3 SCR 578: AIR 1960 SC 936; K.S. Paripooman v.

State of Kera/a & Ors. 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 405: (1994) 5 SCC 593; C. Gupta v. Glaxo- Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2007 (7) SCR 800: (2007) 7 SCC 171; National Council For Teacher Education v. Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan 2011 (2) SCR 291: (2011) 3 SCC 238;

Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1999 (4) Suppl. scR 195: (1999) 8 sec 667;

Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. v. State of U.P. 2001

(3) SCR 33: (2001) 5 SCC 519; K.P. Varghese v. Income Tax OfficerEmakulam 1982 (1) SCR 629:

(1981) 4 SCC 173; Commissioner of Sales Tax, c UP. v. Indra Industries (2000) 9 SCC 66; CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd., (2015) 1 SCC 1 - referred to.

Case Law Reference 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 105 referred to. Para 7 1979 (2) SCR 826 referred to. Para 7 (19_60) 3 SCR 578 referred to. Para 7 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 405 referred to. Para 8

SUPR~MECOURTREPORTS [2015] 10S.C.R.

2007 (7) SCR 800 referred to. Para 8 2011 (2) SCR 291 referred to. Para 9 1999 (4) Suppl. SCR 195 referred to. Para 11 2001 {3) SCR 33 referred to. Para ~1 .

1982 (1) SCR 629 referred to. Para 14 (2000) g sec 66 referred to. Para 14 (2015) 1 sec 1 referred to. Para 15 c CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. From the Judgment and Order dated 09.05.2006 of the Securities Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 120 of 2003 and D Appeal Nos. 123, 125, 149, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180.~81, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 190, 191, 193, 196, 197,200,204,206,207,208,210,218,224, 226,227,229,230,231,233,237,240,244,248,251,252, 253,254,255,258,263,264,286,291,292,293,301,311, . E 312, 324, 330, 331, 332, 333, 336 and 344 of2004 WITT-I C. A. No. 4743 of 2006 Chander Uday Singh, Dhawal Mehrotra, Saumya Mehrotra, Rishi Gautam, Bhargava V. Desai for the Appellant. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Bharat Merchant, Jatin Zaveri, Neel Kamal Mishra, Abhinav Malhotra, Manoj K. Mishra, Mohd.

G lrshad Hanif, P. N. Puri, RashmikumarManilalVithlani, Chinmoy Khaladkar, Vimal Chandra S. Dave, Prateesh Kapur, Ranjit B. Raut, Bina Gupta, K. J. John & Co., Legal Options, Lalitha Kohli (for Manoj Swarup & Co.), Vikas Mehta, A. K. Sinha, Rauf Rahim for the Respondents.

S.E.8.1. v. ALLIANCE FINSTOCK LTD.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. Both the appeals have been preferred under Section 15Z of the securities & Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (for brevity 'the SEBI Act') against a common judgment and order dated 091h May 2006 s rendered Qy the learned Securities Appellate Tribunal (for brevity 'the SAT') in Appeal No.123 of 2004 and other analogous appeals filed by the stock brokers (respondents herein) to challenge the action of the Securities & Exchange Board of India (for short, 'the SEBI') denying them the benefit C of fee continuity in terms of paragraph 4 of Schedule Ill to the Securities & Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and SubB roke rs) Regulations, 1992 [hereinafter called 'the Regulations'].

2. The SAT formulated the issue falling for determination in the form of a question - "whether stock brokers who have converted their individual/partnership membership into a corporate entity prior to April 01, 1997 are entitled to the fee continuity benefit in terms of paragraph 4 of Schedule HI .... ". Since the SAT answered the question in favour of the stock brokers (the respondents herein), SEBI is in appeal.

3. The basic facts are common in all the matters inasmuch as the concerned broker was previously member of the F Bombay Stock Exchange (for short, 'BSE') in his individual capacity or as a partnership firm. He opted to form a corporate entity under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956 prior to April 01, 1997 and carried on the brokers' business under the name and style of new corporate entity by getting its G membership converted through approval of SSE leading to registration by the SEBI as a corporate entity. Undoubtedly, no stock broker or sub-broker can buy, sell or deal in securities unless it is granted Certificate of Registration by SEBI under the Regulations and for that, ordinarily the stock broker is H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 1 O S.C.R.

required to pay the requisite fees in the manner provided in the Regulations. In particular, Regulation 10 provides that every applicant eligible for the grant of a certificate shall pay such fees and in such manner as is specified in Schedule Ill to the Regulations.

4. Although the controversy relates to par~graph 4 of Schedule Ill, some other paragraphs are also relevant and hence these along with paragraph 4 are extracted herein below :

c "I. Fees to be paid by the Stock Broker.

1. Every stock broker shall subject to paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Schedule pay registration fees in the manner set out below :

(2) where the annual turnover does not exceed rupees one crore during any financial year, a sum of rupees five thousand for each financial year;

(3) where the annual turnover of the stock-broker exceeds rupees one crore during any financial year, a sum of rupees five thousand plus one hundredth of one per cent of the turnover in excess of rupees one crore for each financial year;

(bb) ( 4) after the expiry offive financial years from the date of initial registration as a stock-broker, he shall pay a sum of rupees five thousand for every block of five financial years commencing from the sixth financial year after the date of grant of initial registration to keep his registration in force.

2. Fees referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 above shall be paid -

18. in respect of the financial year 1992-93 within one month of the commencement of these regulations;

[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.] S.E.B.I. v. ALLIANCE FINSTOCK LTD.

19. in respect of the financial year beginning on the 1s1 A day of /,pril, 1993 and the following financial years, on or before the first day of October of the financial year to which such payment relates, and such fees shall be computed w.ith reference to the 8 annual turnover relating to the preceding financial year. 3.

4. Where· a corporate entity has been formed by converting the individual or partnership membership card C of the exchange, such corporate entity shall be exempted from payment of fee for the period for which the erstwhile individual or partnership member, as the case may be, has already paid the fees subject to the condition that the erstwhile individual or partner shall be the whole-time 0 director of the corporate member so converted and such director will continue to hold a minimum of 40 per cent shares of the paid-up equity capital of the corporate entity for a period of at least three years from the date of such conversion.

Explanation: It is clarified that the conversion of individual or partnership membership card of the exchange into corporate entity shall be deemed to be in continuation of the old entity and no fee shall be collected again from the converted corporate entity for the period for which erstwhile entity has paid the fee as per the regulations.

4A.

5. If a stock broker fails to remit fees in accordance with G Paragraphs 1 and 2, he shall be liable to pay interest at 15% per annum for each month of delay or part thereof. Provided that the liability to pay interest as aforesaid may be in addition to any other action which the Board,

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10 S.C.R.

may take as deemed fit against the stock broker under the Act, or the Regulations.

Provided further ................. .

Manner of Fees to be paid.

The fees specified above shall be paid on or before the 1 •1 day of October each year payable by draft in favour of ''The Securities and Exchange Board of India" at Bombay, or at the respective regional office". c

5. Case of the SEBI is that since Para 4 of Schedule Ill was introduced by an amending notification dated 21.1.98 which states in Para 2 that the amendment will be effective D from the date of notification i.e, 21.1.98, the annual fee payable by registered brokers would remain unaffected for the earlier year ending 31.3.97 and it can at best be effected only ln respect of fees payable for the year 1.4.97 onwards. On such premise it has been forcefully contended on behalf of the E appellants thatthe SAT has erred in granting retrospectivity to the provisions of para 4 by granting the benefit of fee continuity even to entities which acquired corporate membership on conversion even prior to 1.4.97.

6. The submission of Mr. C.l:I. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the SEBI, are to the following effect:- (1) SEBI cannot make retrospective Regulations.

(2) Rules and regulations are generally prospective unless explicitly made retrospective.

(3) _While bestowing a new benefit, the concerned statutory authority can always choose a cut off date.

(4) Unless the cut off date suffers from arbitrariness, there can be no interference.

[SHIVAKIRTI SINGH, J.] S.E.8.1. v. ALLIANCE FINSTOCK LTD.

(5) Materials like press statement or letter cannot A act as estoppel against the statutory provisions such as the Regulations.

7. In support of the first and second submission it has been pointed out that Section 30 of the SEBI Act vests the 8 Board with the power to ma.ke regulations consistent with the Act and the rules made thereunder so as to carry out the purposes of the Act and there is nothing specific in this Section granting power to frame regulations with retrospective effect. To further support this proposition, reliance has been placed c upon judgments in the case of (1) K Narayanan v. State of Karnataka, 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 44, (2) Mohd. Rashid Ahmad v. State of U.P., (1979) 1 SCC 596 and (3) Mahadeolal Kanodia v. The Administrator General of West Bengal, (1960) 3 SCR578 =AIR 1960 SC 936. In K. Narayanan a retrospective rule was struck down on ground of unjust and unfair effect upon a section of officials and therefore held discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and

16. In Mohd. Rashid Ahmed the Court was dealing with service matter and was called upon to decide whether a E particular rule could be given retrospective effect. Since the statute vested the State Government with power to frame rules even with retrospective effect, the relevant provision was held to be retrospective after reiterating an established rule of construction "that retrospective operation is not to be given to a statute so as to impair an existing right or obligation other than as regards the matter of procedure, unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of enactment." Similar view was expressed in the case of G Mahadeolal.

8. Reliance was also placed upon a Constitution Bench judgment in the case of K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kera la & Ors., (1994) 5 SCC 593. There the issue related to retrospectivity but in an entirely different context of whether H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10 S.C.R.

A there must be clear intendment in the law if an amendment dealing with substantive rights is to apply to pending legal proceedings, initiated prior to. the commencement of the amending Act. The majority held that the intendment in such a situation must be in clear terms. In the case of C. Gupta v. B Glaxo- Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2007) 7 SCC 171 the Court, in the context of benefits under the Workmen's - Compensation Act, reiterated the well established law that an enactment in order to be read as retrospective, must have an express provision to that effect or same effect must flow by C necessary implication or intendment.

9. The aforementioned case laws have been noticed out of deference to the submissions but in fact they do not serve much purpose because the law governing the field is D otherwise also quite settled. Although the amending notification introducing para 4 of Schedule Ill is effective from 21.1.1998, on the plea of convenience and logic the appellant has itself clarified that the provisions of para 4 will be effective from an earlier date, viz., 1.4.1997. By relying upon some case laws E such as in the case of National Council For Teacher Education v. Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan (2011) 3 sec 238 it has been contended that appellant is entitled to fix a cut-off date such as 1.4.1997. It has been highlighted that fees are to be computed and paid for every financial year hence introduction of the concession under paragraph 4 w.e.f.

beginning of a financial year 1997-1998 is reasonable and serves a purpose. Appellant emphasized the reasons for introducing incentive for corporatisation of G individual or partnership entities for carrying out business of brokerage in shares etc. by referring to a speech of the then Finance Minister as well as a Memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance Bill, 1997.

[SHIVAKIRTI SINGH, J.) S.E.B.I. v. ALLIANCE FINSTOCK LTD.

encourage corporatisation of stock brokers' cards and hence A the action of SEBI in int~oducing paragraph 4 of Schedule Ill in the Regulations needs to be construed only as a prospective measure and not as one conferring benefit to even such entities who had acquired corporate entity prior to 1.4.1997.

10. In reply Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior advocate appearing for some of the respondents used the same background facts fo contend that in principle SEBI accepted the proposition that if the same entity had paid fees as a stock broker and it continues to do the same business by converting C into a corporate entity then fees paid for the earlier years needed recognition. On this principle the effect of paragraph 4 to Schedule Ill was to place an embargo on the powers of SEBI on and after the amendment introduced w.e.f. 21.1.1998 to collect any fees from the new entity by ignoring the fees D earlier paid by the previous avatar of the new entity. According to Mr.

Divan a fee is a fiscal levy and, therefore, principles applicable to interpretation of legal provisions governing a fiscal levy are attracted in the present case and not the rules of interpretation governing other laws. According to him the plain language of paragraph 4 is decisive and that led to the decision under appeal against SEBI. According to him even if some amount of ambiguity is found in the relevant provision then the interpretation which is favourable to the brokers needs to be F adopted. He further made a distinction between power to a levy duty or fee and the power of collection. According to him a competent authority, in this case SEBI, can decide for itself whether to proceed with collection or not. E;mbargo on collection, according to him, is clearly prospective in the G present facts.

11. On behalf of respondents reliance was placed upon judgment in the case of Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667 wherein, in the context H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10S.C.R.

of municipal taxes, this Court held that the intention of the Legislature in a taxing statute is.to be gathered from the express language particularly where it is plain and unambiguous. It is not permissible to add or substitute words for giving a meaning to such statutes for the purpose of serving B the perceived spirit or intention of the Legislature. Reliance was also placed upon Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2001) 5 SCC 519 for supporting the submission that in law there is a clear distinction between levy and collection of taxes. In the case of Somaiya Organics the Constitution Bench noted that Article 265 of the Constitution uses the words 'levy' and 'collect'. The Court went on to hold that these words are not synonymous terms.

This distinction was required to be made in that case because certain provisions had been declared illegal only prospectively. In that context it was held that while "levying" would mean the assessment or charging or imposing of tax, "collection" would mean the fiscal realization of the tax levied or imposed. It was also pointed out that ordinarily collection of tax is a stage subsequent to the levy of E the same. It is not necessary to multiply case laws cited on these points.

12. Respondents referred to a Press Release dated 28.12.2001 publicising the decisions that were taken in the meeting of the SEBI Board on that date. In sub-para (e) of para 2 it is disclosed that the SEBI Board considered the representations made by the brokers in the light of relevant materials and decided the following :

"2. Broker Fees -Amendment to SEBI (Stock Broker and Sub Broker) Regulations a.

b.

c.

S.E.B.I. v. ALLIANCE FINSTOCK LTD.

[SHIVAKIRTI SINGH,J.] d.

e.

the fee-continuity benefit which was given to all brokers, who had corporatised after January 21, 1998 (the date on which the SEBI (Stock Broker and Sub Broker) Regulations were amended) and also to those who corporatised between April 1, 1997 and January 21, 1998 would be extended to all brokers who had corporatised prior to April 1, 1997, provided that SEBI has not. collected fees from any such broking entity already.

c f. ............ "

13. It was also pointed out that Explanation of paragraph 4 to Schedule Ill of the Regulations was inserted through an amendment regulation of 2002 w.e.f. 20.2.2002 and submitted o that the entire provision in the Explanation was to give statutory base to the decision contained in the Press Release highlighted above. The Explanation reads thus : "Explanation : It is clarifiec:t that the conversion of E individual or partnership membership card of the exchange into corporate entity shall be deemed to be in continuation of the old entity and no fee shall be collected again from the converted corporate entity for the period for which the erstwhile entity has paid the fee as per the regulations."

·

14. Reliance was placed upon judgments in the case of K.P. Varghese v. Income Tax Officer Ernakulam (1981) 4 sec 173 and also in the case of Commissioner of Sales G Tax, U.P. v. Indra Industries (2000) 9 SCC 66 in support of the submission that the Press Release may not be having statutory effect but it helps in understanding the intention of SEBI Board which issued the Release. In other words, the respondents sought to rely upon the principle of H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 10 S.C.R.

A contemporanea expositio as propounded in the case of K.P. Varghese. In Indra Industries the circulars issued by the Income Tax Department were held to have binding effect upon the taxing authorities though it may not be binding on the CQl.!rts or on the assessee.

15. For highlighting the general principles concerning retrospectivity of a statutory Act, Rule or notification, Mr. Divan relied upon a Constitution Bench judgment in the case of CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd., (2015) 1 SCC 1. In paragraphs C 27, 28 and 29 the Court recollected the clear legal position agreed to by the parties and thereafter some exceptions as to when and why the general rule against retrospectivity ·is inapplicable, was pointed out in paragraph 30 which is as follows:- "30. We would also like to point out, for the sake of completeness, that where a benefit is conferred by a legislation, the rule against a retrospective construction is different.

If a legislation confers a benefit on some persons but without iRflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person or on the public generally, and where to confer such benefit appears to have been the legislators' object, then the presumption would be that such a legislation, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant it to be given a retrospective effect. This exactly is the justification to treat procedural provisions as retrospective. In Govt. of India v. Indian Tobacco Assn., (2005) 7 SCC 396 the doctrine of fairness was held to be relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, In the context of it to be given a retrospective operation. The same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied in Vijay v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 6 SCC 289.

[SHIVAKIRTI SINGH, J.] S.E.B.I. v. ALLIANCE FINSTOCK LTD.

may be held to be retrospective in nature. However, we A are (sic not) confronted with any such situation here." The Court then concluded that "In such cases, retrospectivity is attached to benefit the persons in contradistinction to the provision imposing some burden or liability where the B presumption attaches towards prospectivity." The Court also extracted relevant explanation in respect of "declaratory statutes" from the book Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh to make the legal position clear that if a statute is curative, explanatory or merely declaratory of an C earlier law, it is generally intended to have retrospective operation.

16. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of several other respondents have supported the contentions advanced by Mr. o Divan that on plain construction of the concerned Regulation i.e, para 4 of Schedule Ill, it can safely be held that the provisions merely look at some past happenings but the benefits are to accrue to the eligible entities only in future and hence the provisions do not operate retrospectively. Further stand of the E respondents is that SEBI itself cannot question the validity of the circulars and policy decisions declared by the SEBI Board and such circulars and declarations granting benefits even from a retrospective date cannot be held bad in law in view of law noticed and laid down in Vatika case. The matter could have F been different if SEBI had attempted to impose liabilities or create obligations upon stock brokers from a retrospective date. In case of conferment of benefits, no vested rights are adversely affected and in such cases retrospective operation is protected and permissible on the principles noticed in Vatika G case.

7. In reply Mr. C. U. Singh referred to policy circular dated 28.3.2002 which inter alia states that pursuant to a judgment of this Court dated 1.2.2001 directing SEBI to amend the H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10 S.C.R.

Regulations in light of recommendations of the R.S. Bhatt Committee report, SEBI had examined representations from the brokers and issued clarifications contained in part A of the circular. PartA, inter alia, contains a clarification in respect of applicability of the notification on exemption from fees on B corporatization. The clarification reads thus "the spirit behind notification dated 21.1.1998 was to give benefit of this amendment to stock brokers who have converted their individual stockpartnership membership into corporate on or after 1.4.1997. Accordingly such stock brokers shall be given C the benefit of continuity subject to the satisfaction of conditions mentioned in the notification."

18. On a careful consideration of rival submissions and l<eeping in view the relevant case laws relied upon by the parties D we have examined analytically and carefully paragraph 4 as well as the explanations thereto in Schedule Ill of the Regulations. We find that para 4 was no doubt inserted through an amendment with effect from 21.1.1998 but it does not disclose, either explicitly or even by necessary implication, that E although possessi~g the required qualifications, a corporate entity formed earlier to 21.1.1998 would not be exempted from payment of fee for the period for which the erstwhile individual or partnership members has already paid the fees.

In respect F of a legislation offiscal character such as the present provision which relates to fees, it will not be proper or permissible to read into or delete words which do not exist in the provision. Further even if there is any scope of doubt, the benefit of such doubt will go to the subject i.e., the stock brokers and not to G authority, in this case the SEBI. We further find that the explanation to para 4 introduced with effect from 20.2.

[SHIVAKIRTI SINGH, J.] S.E.B.I. v. ALLIANCE FINSTOCK LTD.

a continuation of the entity in respect of collection of fees from A the converted corporate entity. Further, an embargo has been created against collection of fees again from the converted corporate entity. This explanation is statutory in nature and like para 4 it also does not restrict the benefits of conversion to entities converted or:i or after any particular date. The B explanation does not talk of making any refund nor does it render the initial levy or assessment of fee as bad but forbids the collection of such fees if the converted corporate entity is entitled to fee continuation benefit in terms of paragraph 4 of Schedule Ill to the Regulations.

19. Following the judgment in the case of Somaiya Organics, we agree that 'levy' and 'collection' are not synonyms and generally they occur at different stages. In the present case the legislative intention is to put an embargo on D . collection in future, in case the converted corporate entity is found entitled to the benefits of fee continuity. Such embargo is clearly to operate prospectively even ifthere existed some kind of liability in the past on account of fees leviable prior to insertion of paragraph 4 of Schedule Ill to the Regulations. In any case the rati.onale in not permitting retrospective operation of laws is only to ensure that subjects are not adversely affected by creation of legal liabilities and obligations for a period already bygone. In the present case the provisions do not F create any obligation or liability. They only confer benefits by way of fee continuity on account of fees already paid by the earlier entity before its conversion into a new corporate entity.

20. Even if we were to apply the test of fairness, no exception can be taken to extention of the benefit of fee G exemption as provided by the relevant provision in the Regulations. Since the policy behind grant of benefits is to encourage corporatization of individual or partnership members of a stock exchange, the action of extending such H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10 S.C.R.

benefits without any curb on the basis of date of conversions cannot be held as unfair.

21. As noted earlier the SEBI itself extended the benefit to those converting not only from 21.1.1998 but from 1.4.1997. B There is nothing in paragraph 4 or in the explanation to support the stand of the SEBI that the benefits must be confined to conversions taking place after a particular date when no such date finds place in the Regulations. As a result, appeals preferred by SEBI are dismissed and the judgments and C orders under appeal passed by SAT are upheld. In the facts of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. Nidhi Jain Appeals dislT!issed.