Reference-based exemption notifications: later amendments to the incorporated terms applied, defeating the entry tax exemption claim.

A later exemption notification that adopts the terms of an earlier sales tax notification by reference is treated as incorporating its conditions dynamically, so later amendments to the earlier notification apply unless a contrary intention appears. On that construction, the insertion of clause (g) into the earlier notification governed the entry tax exemption scheme as well, and a large-scale industrial unit that did not satisfy the amended conditions was excluded from the benefit. The claim for exemption under Notification No. FD 11 CET 93(III) dated 31 March 1993 therefore failed, and the levy of entry tax was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notification issued under section 11A of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 merely referred to or incorporated the earlier sales tax notification, so that the later amendment inserting clause (g) became applicable; (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption from entry tax under Notification No. FD 11 CET 93(III) dated 31 March 1993.

Issue (i): Whether the notification issued under section 11A of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 merely referred to or incorporated the earlier sales tax notification, so that the later amendment inserting clause (g) became applicable.

Analysis: The notification under section 11A adopted the meaning of the expressions, the disqualifications, and the procedure contained in the earlier sales tax notification issued under section 8-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The reference was to the earlier notification as a source for understanding and application of its conditions, and not as a frozen incorporation of its text. Where a later instrument refers to an earlier one by citation, subsequent amendments to the earlier instrument operate on the later one unless a contrary intention appears. The insertion of clause (g) into the earlier notification therefore affected the entry tax notification as well.

Conclusion: The notification operated by reference, not by incorporation, and clause (g) applied to the entry tax exemption notification.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption from entry tax under Notification No. FD 11 CET 93(III) dated 31 March 1993.

Analysis: The assessee was a large-scale industrial unit and had not opted for the concession within the time contemplated by the amended conditions. Once clause (g) became applicable, the assessee fell within the class of units excluded from the benefit. The plea for a beneficial or harmonious construction did not assist the assessee because the statutory notifications admitted only one workable construction on the facts.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to the exemption claimed under Notification No. FD 11 CET 93(III) dated 31 March 1993.

Final Conclusion: The revision petitions failed, and the orders sustaining the levy of entry tax were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later exemption notification adopts the terms of an earlier notification only by reference, subsequent amendments to the earlier notification apply to the later one unless the later notification shows a contrary intention.

---