Court upholds exemption for tyre cord fabric under Sales Tax Acts despite legislative changes

The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the Board of Revenue's decision that the assessee was entitled to exemption under the notification dated December 14, 1957, issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The court concluded that the tyre cord fabric is classified as a textile fabric under both the Central Sales Tax Act and the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The exemption under the Central Sales Tax Act remained valid despite subsequent legislative changes in the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The court rejected the revision petition, stating it had no force, and dismissed it with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the notification dated December 14, 1957, under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act was superseded by the notification dated July 1, 1958, under section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act.
2. Applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in the assessee's own case considering the subsequent legislative amendments.
3. Classification of tyre cord fabric as a textile under the Central Sales Tax Act and the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Supersession of Notification
The primary contention was whether the notification dated December 14, 1957, issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, was superseded by the notification dated July 1, 1958, under section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The court analyzed the relevant notifications and concluded that the notification under the Central Sales Tax Act was not superseded by the one under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The court emphasized that implied repeal is not readily inferred and that the notification under the Central Sales Tax Act remained effective unless specifically nullified by another notification under the same Act. The court stated, "I am, therefore, of the view that there is no implied supersession of the notification dated December 14, 1957, issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act."

Issue 2: Applicability of Supreme Court's Decision
The court examined whether the Supreme Court's decision in the assessee's own case ([1980] 46 STC 256) remained applicable despite subsequent legislative amendments. The court noted that the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act was amended by Act No. 4 of 1980 to add a proviso to entry 18, making the exemption conditional. However, this amendment did not affect the unconditional exemption provided under the Central Sales Tax Act. The court observed, "The notification dated December 14, 1957, issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act was neither brought to the knowledge of their Lordships of the Supreme Court nor was considered by them." Thus, the Supreme Court's decision still held relevance for the Central Sales Tax Act.

Issue 3: Classification of Tyre Cord Fabric
The classification of tyre cord fabric as a textile was another significant issue. The court referred to the Supreme Court's observation that "by and large a tyre cord fabric is regarded as a textile fabric." The court reiterated that the definition of "textile" includes tyre cord fabric, as established by the Supreme Court. The court stated, "The definition of the 'textile' as reproduced and considered by their Lordships leaves no doubt in my mind that in common and commercial parlance the tyre cord fabric is a textile fabric." Therefore, the tyre cord fabric was classified as a textile under both the Central Sales Tax Act and the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act.

Conclusion
The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the Board of Revenue's decision that the assessee was entitled to exemption under the notification dated December 14, 1957, issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The court concluded that the tyre cord fabric is a textile fabric and that the exemption provided under the Central Sales Tax Act remained valid despite subsequent legislative changes in the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The court stated, "The revision has no force and is accordingly rejected." The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

---