Entry tax exemption limits and no retrospective relief where later notification lacked express backward effect

Cement brought into a local area for use in manufacturing cement poles did not qualify for the limited special rate under Explanation II to the entry tax notification, because that carve-out applied only to specified goods used as raw material in the manufacture of tobacco products and liquor. The main entry tax liability under the relevant charging provision therefore continued to apply. A later notification deleting cement from the entry could not operate retrospectively merely because the budget speech had referred to a proposed benefit, as only the statutory text actually brought into force governs and retrospective effect must be express. The claimed exemption and retrospective relief were rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether cement brought into the local area for use in manufacture of cement poles was entitled to exemption or concessional treatment under Explanation II to the entry tax notification, and whether a subsequent budget speech and later notification could confer the benefit from an earlier date.

Analysis: Explanation II extended the special rate only where the specified goods were brought into a local area for use or consumption as raw material in the manufacture of tobacco products and liquor. Cement used in the manufacture of cement poles did not fall within that limited exception, and the liability otherwise fixed under the main Table under section 3(1) continued to apply. A later notification deleting cement from the relevant entry could not be given retrospective effect merely because the Finance Minister had referred to a proposed benefit in the budget speech. What governs is the statutory provision actually brought into force, and in the absence of express retrospective operation, the tax liability remained for the assessment period in question.

Conclusion: The dealer was not entitled to the claimed exemption or retrospective relief, and the assessment restoring entry tax at the applicable rate was upheld.

---