Retrospective statutory amendment displaced an earlier exemption notification, leaving component parts and inputs from iron and steel liable to entry tax.

A delegated exemption notification under Explanation II to Entry 16-B could not survive a later retrospective amendment that incorporated only specified iron and steel items into the Schedule and omitted component parts and inputs manufactured from those items. Entry 16-B treated raw materials, component parts and inputs as separate taxable categories, and the legislative amendment reflected a clear intent to withdraw the exemption for the omitted category. A notification cannot prevail against the amended parent statute on the same subject, so the exemption became ineffective by implication to the extent of the inconsistency, leaving the disputed goods liable to entry tax.

---

---

Issues: Whether the exemption notification issued under Explanation II to Entry 16-B of the Schedule to the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 survived after the Legislature, by Amendment Act 18 of 1989 with retrospective effect, incorporated only the specified iron and steel items into the Schedule but did not retain the exemption for component parts and inputs manufactured out of those items.

Analysis: Entry 16-B treated raw materials, component parts and inputs as distinct taxable categories. The notification had exempted iron and steel items and also component parts or inputs manufactured out of those items. The amendment thereafter bodily incorporated only the iron and steel items into Explanation II with retrospective effect from the date of the notification, while omitting the component parts and inputs manufactured from those items. In such a situation, the legislative intent was held to be clear: the exemption notification could not continue in respect of the omitted category. A delegated notification cannot prevail against the later legislative mandate on the same subject, and where the Legislature consciously amends the Schedule without saving the earlier exemption, the notification becomes ineffective by implication.

Conclusion: The exemption for component parts and inputs manufactured out of iron and steel did not survive the retrospective amendment and the petitioners were not entitled to exemption.

Final Conclusion: The revision petitions failed because the later statutory amendment prevailed over the earlier exemption notification, leaving the disputed goods liable to entry tax.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Legislature amends the parent statute on the same subject and, by necessary implication, departs from an earlier exemption granted by delegated notification, the notification stands impliedly repealed or rendered ineffective to the extent of the inconsistency.

---