Prospective statutory definition and superseding notification: earlier sales tax concession survived only until 31 December 1999.

A prospective statutory definition of "notification" does not retrospectively extinguish a concession already flowing from an earlier government order. However, a later notification issued under the enabling power and expressly superseding prior notifications will terminate that earlier concession from its effective date. On that construction, the concessional sales tax benefit under G.O. Ms. No. 124/88/ID continued only until 31 December 1999 and ceased thereafter. The benefit remained available for the earlier assessment period, but not for periods after 1 January 2000.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether G.O. Ms. No. 124/88/ID dated 31 August 1988 continued to confer concessional sales tax benefit after the insertion of the definition of "notification" in section 2(xva) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and after S.R.O. No. 1091/99; (ii) whether the assessees were entitled to the concessional rate under G.O. Ms. No. 124/88/ID for the relevant assessment periods, including the period after 1 January 2000.

Issue (i): Whether G.O. Ms. No. 124/88/ID dated 31 August 1988 continued to confer concessional sales tax benefit after the insertion of the definition of "notification" in section 2(xva) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and after S.R.O. No. 1091/99.

Analysis: The definition of "notification" inserted with effect from 1 April 1998 was held to operate prospectively. A later statutory definition could not retrospectively invalidate the benefit already flowing from the Government Order as judicially recognised. However, S.R.O. No. 1091/99 was a fresh notification issued under section 10 and expressly superseded all earlier notifications in force as on 31 December 1999 except the one specifically saved. On that construction, the earlier Government Order survived only until the date on which the superseding notification came into force.

Conclusion: G.O. Ms. No. 124/88/ID remained effective only up to 31 December 1999 and ceased to operate thereafter.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessees were entitled to the concessional rate under G.O. Ms. No. 124/88/ID for the relevant assessment periods, including the period after 1 January 2000.

Analysis: For the assessment year 1998-99, the benefit was available because the superseding notification had not yet taken effect. For the assessment year 1999-2000, the benefit was available only up to 31 December 1999 and not thereafter. For the remaining revisions, the Tribunal's view that the assessees could continue to claim the concession after the superseding notification could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The concession was available for the earlier period, but not for periods after 1 January 2000; the Revenue succeeded in the revisions except to the limited extent indicated.

Final Conclusion: The common judgment upheld the supersession of the earlier concession notification by S.R.O. No. 1091/99, while preserving the benefit only for the period prior to its commencement on 1 January 2000.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory definition introduced prospectively does not retrospectively extinguish an existing concession, but a later notification issued under the enabling power and expressly superseding earlier notifications will terminate the earlier concession from the date it takes effect.

---