Tax exemption by notification only: administrative letters cannot enlarge relief, and unlisted goods remain outside the exemption.

Tax exemption from purchase tax must be granted only in the statutory manner prescribed by notification in the Gazette; administrative letters or clarifications cannot enlarge or substitute that exemption, so they do not bind taxing authorities. Exemption notifications are strictly construed within their express terms, and goods not specifically covered cannot be brought within the benefit by analogy. On that approach, block board and block board frames were treated as distinct from plywood and soft wood, and a later exemption applied only from the date notified, not retrospectively from 1 January 1994.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether letters issued by the Government and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes could confer exemption from purchase tax contrary to the statutory notification and bind the taxing authorities; (ii) whether block board and block board frames were covered by the exemption notification for plywood and soft wood so as to claim retrospective exemption from 1 January 1994.

Issue (i): whether letters issued by the Government and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes could confer exemption from purchase tax contrary to the statutory notification and bind the taxing authorities.

Analysis: The power to grant exemption from tax was specifically conferred on the Government under section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, and had to be exercised by notification in the Gazette. Section 3 conferred supervisory and administrative powers on the Board/Commissioner over officers, but not power to create or enlarge exemptions. Administrative letters or clarifications could represent only an understanding of the statute and could not override statutory provisions or the prescribed mode of exemption. A clarification issued without statutory authority could not substitute for a valid exemption notification.

Conclusion: The letters were not binding as a source of exemption and could not confer retrospective tax relief; the finding is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether block board and block board frames were covered by the exemption notification for plywood and soft wood so as to claim retrospective exemption from 1 January 1994.

Analysis: The exemption under S.R.O. No. 403/94 was framed for specified goods, and exemptions must be strictly construed within the four corners of the notification. Block board and block board frames were treated as commercially distinct goods from plywood, with separate identity, process of manufacture, and market recognition. As they were not expressly included in the notification, the benefit could not be extended by analogy. A later notification granting exemption for block board and block board frames operated only from the date fixed by the Government and not retrospectively from 1 January 1994.

Conclusion: Block board and block board frames were not entitled to exemption under the earlier notification for the period claimed; the finding is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The claimed retrospective exemption failed, and the later exemption operated only from the date notified by the Government; the revision petitions were liable to be rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption from tax can be granted only in the manner authorised by statute, and administrative letters or clarifications cannot enlarge or substitute a statutory exemption notification; exemption provisions must be strictly construed and cannot be extended to goods not expressly covered.

---