Special tax concession prevails over later general provision where no clear intent to override the earlier notification exists.

A special tax concession under S.R.O. No. 643/81 for rubber sheets used to manufacture chappals continued to apply for the 1984-85 assessment year despite the later introduction of section 5(7) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The later provision was treated as a general concession for industrial raw materials and packing materials, operating in a different field and showing no clear legislative intent to override the earlier special notification. The later supersession of S.R.O. No. 643/81 by S.R.O. No. 372/92 also supported that the earlier notification remained effective until then. Technical defects in the declaration form did not defeat entitlement where compliance was substantially achieved, and the concessional 4 per cent rate was available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the concessional rate of tax under S.R.O. No. 643/81 continued to apply to rubber sheets used for manufacture of chappals for the assessment year 1984-85 notwithstanding the introduction of section 5(7) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, and whether the assessee was therefore entitled to assessment at 4 per cent.

Analysis: The reduction granted by S.R.O. No. 643/81 was a special concession for specified goods, including rubber sheets used for manufacture of chappals. Section 5(7), introduced later, provided a general concession for industrial raw materials or packing materials sold to industrial units for use in production of finished products, and did not contain anything showing an intention to supersede the special notification. The later statutory provision and the notification operated in different fields, and the special notification was held to prevail over the general provision. The subsequent supersession of S.R.O. No. 643/81 by S.R.O. No. 372/92 also indicated that the earlier notification remained in force until that later notification came into effect. The discrepancy in the form of declaration was treated as technical, since the declarations were substantially similar in substance.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the concessional tax rate of 4 per cent under S.R.O. No. 643/81 for the relevant assessment year, and the denial of that benefit was incorrect.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was directed to be modified so as to grant the concessional treatment claimed by the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A special tax concession notification continues to operate despite a later general provision covering the subject, unless the legislative intent to repeal or supersede the special concession is clear; technical defects in declaration forms do not defeat substantive entitlement where compliance is in substance achieved.

---