Retrospective exemption denied where later insertion of latex collection cups or rubber bowls was a fresh amendment, not clarification.

The amendment inserting a latex collection plastic cup or rubber bowl into the exemption notification was held not to be clarificatory or explanatory, because the original notification exempted only hand-worked agricultural implements and expressly listed 37 items. The later insertion showed a fresh decision to extend the exemption to that item, not a prior coverage capable of retrospective reading. In the absence of any express indication of retrospective operation, the notification could not be given retrospective effect by interpretation. The exemption therefore did not apply for assessment year 1994-95.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amendment introducing latex collection plastic cup or rubber bowl into the exemption notification was clarificatory or explanatory in nature and therefore applied retrospectively to assessment year 1994-95.

Analysis: The original notification granted exemption only to agricultural implements worked by hand and specifically listed 37 items. The subsequent amendment inserted latex collection plastic cup or rubber bowl as an additional item, and its explanatory note indicated a fresh decision to exempt that item as an agricultural implement. The wording of the original notification and the later insertion showed that the item was not covered earlier. In the absence of any express indication of retrospective operation, the amendment could not be treated as merely clarificatory or explanatory. The Court also noted that it could not supply a retrospective effect by interpretation where the notification itself did not provide for it.

Conclusion: The amendment was not retrospective and the assessee was not entitled to exemption for assessment year 1994-95.

---