General exemption under sales tax law applies when notification only identifies goods and eligible dealers, not when it imposes conditions.

An exemption notification is treated as general and unconditional where it merely identifies the class of goods and the eligible class of dealers, and no further act is required to claim the benefit; on that basis, the exemption under section 8(2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act is available. A value limit or class description used only to identify the exempt goods or persons is not, by itself, a condition of exemption. The objection based on an alternative statutory remedy was also rejected because the petition was filed at the threshold, the matter was examined on merits, and the governing legal principle had already been settled.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the exemption notification under section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act granted a general exemption so as to attract section 8(2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, or whether the value limit and class of industry amounted to conditions of exemption. (ii) Whether the writ petition should be declined on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Issue (i): Whether the exemption notification under section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act granted a general exemption so as to attract section 8(2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, or whether the value limit and class of industry amounted to conditions of exemption.

Analysis: The notification exempted footwear up to the value of Rs. 20 manufactured by small-scale industries. The distinction drawn was between conditions governing the grant of exemption and the criteria used to identify the goods or class of persons covered by the notification. Mere identification of the goods and the eligible class of dealers does not amount to a condition of exemption. Once the class of goods and persons is identified under the notification, and nothing further is required to be done to claim the exemption, the exemption is general in nature. The Court relied on the principle that facts necessary only to identify the dealer and goods are not conditions attached to the turnover sought to be exempted.

Conclusion: The notification conferred a general and unconditional exemption, and the benefit of section 8(2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act was available to the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition should be declined on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: Although an appellate remedy was available, the petition had been moved at the threshold before reassessment, the matter had been fully examined on merits, and the controversy was governed by the legal principle already settled by the Supreme Court. In these circumstances, the objection based on alternate remedy was not accepted.

Conclusion: The objection based on alternative remedy was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment notices and the consequent assessment orders were quashed, and the writ petition succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A notification granting exemption is general in nature when it merely identifies the class of goods or persons eligible for exemption, and such identification does not constitute a condition of exemption for the purpose of section 8(2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act.

---