Implied rescission of exemption notification rejected; later State action did not override the earlier central notification.
A later State notification and insertion of a State schedule entry did not impliedly rescind an earlier exemption notification issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, because the later notification itself proceeded on the footing that the earlier notification remained operative. The Court rejected the argument that the central notification had been displaced by necessary implication and held that it continued in force. Separately, refusal to allow amendment of the writ petition to challenge finalised assessment orders was unsustainable, and the assessee was permitted to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, with limitation objections excluded if the appeal was filed in time.
Issues: (i) Whether the notification dated 14 December 1957 issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 stood impliedly rescinded by the later State notification and the insertion of entry 18 in the State Act schedule; (ii) whether the refusal to permit amendment of the writ petition to challenge the final assessment orders was justified and whether the assessee should be relegated to the statutory appeal remedy.
Issue (i): Whether the notification dated 14 December 1957 issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 stood impliedly rescinded by the later State notification and the insertion of entry 18 in the State Act schedule.
Analysis: The later notification of 2 January 1981 expressly superseded all notifications issued under section 8(5) in respect of tyre cord fabrics and warp sheets, which showed that the 14 December 1957 notification was treated as still operative. The Court rejected the contention that the State notification of 1 July 1958 or the insertion of entry 18 had implicitly rescinded the central notification. The field was not treated as having been displaced by necessary implication.
Conclusion: The 14 December 1957 notification did not stand impliedly rescinded. This issue was decided against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the refusal to permit amendment of the writ petition to challenge the final assessment orders was justified and whether the assessee should be relegated to the statutory appeal remedy.
Analysis: The provisional assessments had been finalised during the pendency of the writ petition, and the refusal to allow amendment was found unsustainable. At the same time, since a statutory appeal was available for one assessment year, the assessee was directed to pursue that remedy for the remaining year as well, with the limitation objection excluded if the appeal was filed within the stipulated time.
Conclusion: The rejection of the amendment was set aside and the assessee was allowed to pursue the statutory appeal remedy. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The judgment upheld the validity and continuing force of the central exemption notification but granted the assessee procedural relief on the assessment-challenge issue by permitting recourse to the statutory appellate process.
Ratio Decidendi: A later notification or subsequent state-level exemption does not abrogate an earlier notification under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 by implication where the later governmental action itself proceeds on the footing that the earlier notification remains in force; procedural relief may be granted separately by directing resort to the statutory appellate remedy.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
