Retrospective tax exemption exclusion rejected where later notification lacked express retrospective effect and unit had already begun production.

An amendment notification excluding stone crushing units from sales tax exemption could not operate retrospectively in the absence of express retrospective language. The petitioner had begun commercial production on 30 April 1988, when the earlier exemption notification remained in force, so the benefit under that notification had already accrued subject to satisfaction of the prescribed conditions. The later notification of 11 October 1990 was therefore treated as prospective from its publication date and could not withdraw the exemption already available to the petitioner. The petitioner remained entitled to exemption under the notification dated 16 October 1986.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amendment notification dated 11 October 1990 excluding stone crushing units from sales tax exemption operated retrospectively so as to deny the petitioner exemption available under the notification dated 16 October 1986.

Analysis: The petitioner had commenced commercial production on 30 April 1988, when the unamended exemption notification was in force. The later notification of 11 October 1990 did not state that it would operate retrospectively. In the absence of express retrospective language, a notification takes effect from the date of publication and operates prospectively. Since the petitioner's unit was established and had commenced production before the amendment, the later exclusion could not take away the benefit already available under the earlier notification, subject to fulfilment of the prescribed conditions.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to the exemption under the notification dated 16 October 1986, and the amendment dated 11 October 1990 did not apply retrospectively to defeat that entitlement.

---