Delegated tax notification cannot defeat statutory refund rights for declared goods; inconsistent levy based on it was set aside.

A notification issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act could grant exemption in public interest, but it could not override the statutory refund entitlement under section 15(b) for declared goods that had already borne State tax. The notification was inconsistent with the parent Act because it made exemption depend on the dealer foregoing the refund otherwise available under the statute. As delegated legislation cannot contradict an express substantive provision of the taxing statute, the notification was unenforceable and the assessment based on it could not stand; the tax demand was set aside and the matter required reconsideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State Government notification issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, could validly deny Central sales tax on declared goods where State tax had been levied and collected, and whether such notification could operate consistently with the refund mechanism under section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: The scheme of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, shows that declared goods are subject to taxation with restrictions as to rate and stage of levy, and that where the same goods have borne State tax and are later taxed in inter-State trade, section 15(b) provides for refund of the State tax. A notification under section 8(5) may grant exemption in public interest, but it cannot be framed so as to run contrary to the statutory refund mandate in section 15(b). The notification in question inverted the statutory scheme by making exemption dependent on the dealer foregoing the refund otherwise available under the Act, and was therefore inconsistent with the parent statute.

Conclusion: The notification was held unenforceable as being inconsistent with section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the assessment made by applying that notification could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The tax demand based on the impugned notification was set aside and the matter was required to be reconsidered in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory notification issued under delegated power cannot override or contradict an express substantive provision of the parent taxing statute, especially where it alters the statutory refund entitlement for declared goods.

---