Supersession and rescission of tax notifications do not revive an earlier notification absent express revival provision.

Rescission of a later sales tax notification did not revive an earlier superseded notification in the absence of an express statutory revival provision. The later notification occupied the field during its operative period, so the tax position had to be determined by the law in force at the relevant time. On that basis, the assessee could not claim the lower rate under the earlier notification, and liability remained at 2 per cent on the inter-State sale of pulses, with interest.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rescission of a later sales tax notification revived an earlier superseded notification so as to reduce the tax rate on inter-State sale of pulses, and whether the assessee was liable to tax at 1 per cent or 2 per cent.

Analysis: The revision concerned the effect of supersession and rescission of notifications issued under the taxing law. The earlier notification dated 9 March 1970 had been superseded by the notification dated 26 April 1972, and the later notification was thereafter rescinded on 9 May 1972. The Court held that once a notification is superseded, the later notification occupies the field for its operative period, and rescission of that later notification does not automatically revive the earlier one unless the statute expressly provides for such revival. The Court also held that the applicable tax position must be determined with reference to the law prevailing at the relevant time, and the subsequent amendments did not alter the liability in the manner suggested by the assessee.

Conclusion: The earlier notification was not revived, and the assessee remained liable to pay tax on the inter-State sale of pulses at 2 per cent along with interest.

---