Exemption notifications cannot be extended by unpublished riders; phosphor bronze alloy sales fell outside the published exemption.

An exemption notification is confined to the published statutory text, so an unpublished rider or administrative note cannot by itself extend the exemption. Applied to phosphor bronze ingots, the court treated lead and phosphorus as deliberate ingredients of a distinct alloy, not excusable impurities, and held that the alloy did not fall within an exemption limited to copper, tin, nickel and zinc and their alloys. The sale was therefore taxable and outside the exemption.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the unpublished rider appended to the exemption notification had the force of law and could be relied upon to extend exemption; (ii) Whether the sale of phosphor bronze ingots, containing lead and phosphorus below 1%, was covered by the exemption notification as an alloy of copper and tin only.

Issue (i): Whether the unpublished rider appended to the exemption notification had the force of law and could be relied upon to extend exemption.

Analysis: The exemption under section 4(a) could be granted only by a notification published in the official Gazette. An administrative note or direction forwarded separately, but not published as part of the notification, did not acquire statutory force. On the other view, the rider could be read as explanatory of the notification because commercial understanding of the exempted metals would treat negligible foreign matter as permissible impurity; nevertheless, the published notification itself remained the governing source of exemption.

Conclusion: The rider did not have independent force of law.

Issue (ii): Whether the sale of phosphor bronze ingots, containing lead and phosphorus below 1%, was covered by the exemption notification as an alloy of copper and tin only.

Analysis: The notification exempted sales of copper, tin, nickel and zinc, and alloys containing only those metals. Under one view, lead and phosphorus deliberately included in phosphor bronze were essential ingredients of the alloy and not impurities, so the alloy fell outside the notification. Under the contrary view, the notification was to be read in a commercial sense and the rider treated as explanatory, so negligible foreign matter up to 1% in the alloy of copper and tin would be ignored. On that approach, phosphor bronze ingots with lead and phosphorus below 1% would remain within the exemption. The majority accepted that the ingredients were part of a distinct alloy and not excusable impurities for the purpose of the notification.

Conclusion: The sale of phosphor bronze ingots was taxable and did not fall within the exemption.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the taxing authority, and the assessee was held not entitled to exemption on the sale of phosphor bronze ingots.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification must be confined to the published statutory text, and an alloy containing ingredients beyond those expressly exempted is outside the exemption unless the additional matter is truly an impurity within the legal and commercial meaning of the notification.

---