Retrospective exemption conditions cannot withdraw an already granted tax exemption, and refund proceedings cannot reopen settled assessment issues.

A retrospective exemption notification cannot be used to add new conditions that effectively withdraw or curtail an exemption already granted; where such conditions operate as a retrospective withdrawal of exemption and a fresh levy, the notification is invalid. Refund proceedings are confined to determining tax incidence, limitation, and whether the claimant is the proper applicant; they do not permit reopening of declaration forms or re-examination of a matter already concluded in the seller's assessment. On that basis, refusal of refund on the declaration-form issue was without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Government could, by a subsequent retrospective notification, impose conditions that effectively withdrew or curtailed an exemption already granted under the sales tax exemption power. (ii) Whether, in proceedings for refund under the refund provision, the assessing authority could reopen the correctness of the declaration forms and re-examine a already concluded in the seller's assessment.

Issue (i): Whether the State Government could, by a subsequent retrospective notification, impose conditions that effectively withdrew or curtailed an exemption already granted under the sales tax exemption power.

Analysis: The power under section 4(2) authorises the State Government to exempt sales or purchases prospectively or retrospectively, and to attach conditions in the notification granting exemption. That power permits retrospective exemption with conditions stated in the same notification, but it does not authorise a later retrospective notification that adds conditions so as to nullify or reduce an exemption already acted upon. Such a course would, in substance, operate as a retrospective withdrawal of exemption and a fresh levy of tax, which is outside the contemplated power.

Conclusion: The retrospective notification was beyond the power conferred by section 4(2) and was invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether, in proceedings for refund under the refund provision, the assessing authority could reopen the correctness of the declaration forms and re-examine a matter already concluded in the seller's assessment.

Analysis: The refund provision is confined to deciding who actually suffered the tax incidence, whether the claim is within limitation, and whether the applicant is the proper claimant. It does not permit a fresh inquiry into the validity of the declaration forms where that question has already been examined and concluded in the assessment proceedings of the seller. Once the seller's assessment has accepted the declaration forms as in order, the refund authority cannot deny refund by revisiting that issue.

Conclusion: The authority could not reopen the declaration-form issue while considering refund, and refusal of refund on that basis was without jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The impugned refund rejection could not stand, and the retrospective notification imposing the disputed conditions was held invalid, with relief granted accordingly in the writ matters.

Ratio Decidendi: A retrospective exemption notification under section 4(2) cannot be used to impose new conditions so as to withdraw an exemption already granted, and refund proceedings under section 23-B are limited to entitlement, limitation, and incidence of tax without reopening matters finally decided in the seller's assessment.

---