Retrospective exemption amendment rejected where later notification could not alter earlier eligibility conditions.

An amendment to an exemption notification cannot be treated as retrospective or merely clarificatory unless the text expressly indicates that result. Exemption notifications operate prospectively, and a later change that enlarges or alters the scope of the exemption does not, by itself, change eligibility for an earlier period. The analysis notes that the department applied the amended condition only from its commencement date, and cited precedents supported the view that the amendment had no retrospective operation. On that basis, the rectification application was held liable to be rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amendment to the exemption notification could be applied retrospectively and treated as clarificatory so as to alter the eligibility conditions for the relevant period.

Analysis: The Tribunal found no apparent error in the earlier order. It noted that exemption notifications operate prospectively unless there is an express indication to the contrary. A later amendment which enlarges or changes the scope of an exemption cannot be treated as merely clarificatory. On the facts, the department had applied the amendment only from the date it came into force, and not retrospectively. The cited precedents also supported the view that the amended condition was not retrospective in operation.

Conclusion: The amendment could not be given retrospective effect and the rectification application was liable to be rejected.

---