Strict construction of tax notifications bars combined exemption claims where later notification expressly excludes earlier relief.

A taxing notification granting concessional inter-State sales treatment was construed strictly, and an express exclusion in the later notification barred the dealer from also claiming partial exemption under an earlier notification for the same assessment year. The court stated that departmental circulars cannot alter the scope of the notification, prior assessment practice does not create an enforceable right against the statute, and there is no estoppel or equity against a taxing provision. On that plain reading, the assessee could not combine benefits inconsistent with the later notification's condition, and the denial of partial exemption was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee, having availed the concessional rate of tax under the later notification governing inter-State sales of cement, could still claim partial exemption under the earlier notification for the same assessment year.

Analysis: The notifications were issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and had to be construed strictly according to their plain language. Condition No. 3 of the later notification expressly barred a dealer making inter-State sales under that notification from claiming the benefits of the earlier partial-exemption notification. The Court held that the condition could not be confined only to the particular transaction covered by the later notification, because such a reading would make the words used in the condition redundant. Circulars issued by the departmental authority could not restrict or expand the scope of the statutory notification, and prior assessments or earlier circular-based practice did not create any enforceable right contrary to the later notification. In fiscal matters, there is no equity or estoppel against the statute, and exemption provisions must be applied as written.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to claim partial exemption under the earlier notification for the assessment year 2001-02.

Final Conclusion: The revision petition failed, and the assessment authority and Tax Board were upheld on the question of denial of partial exemption.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption or concession under a taxing notification must be given its plain and literal meaning, and where a later notification contains an express exclusion condition, the benefit under an earlier exemption notification cannot be claimed in contradiction of that condition.

---