Strict construction of tax concessions bars treating de-oiled cake as oil cake and limits reassessment on the same material.

A concessional central sales tax notification must be strictly construed, so de-oiled cake could not be treated as oil cake where the notification expressly included only oil cake and treated the two commodities as distinct. The commentary also states that reassessment under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act could not be reopened merely because the authority later changed its view on the same material and C Forms already examined in the original assessment. On that basis, the original assessment benefit was to stand, while the commodity classification distinction was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether de-oiled cake could be treated as oil cake for the purpose of the notification granting reduced central sales tax. (ii) Whether reassessment could be reopened where the original assessment had accepted the reduced rate on the basis of the available material and C Forms.

Issue (i): Whether de-oiled cake could be treated as oil cake for the purpose of the notification granting reduced central sales tax.

Analysis: The notification under Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 granted the concessional rate only to the goods expressly specified. Oil cake was included in the list, but de-oiled cake was not. The statutory schedule and the notification treated oil cake and de-oiled cake as distinct commodities, and a concessionary notification must be construed strictly. The commercial parlance argument could not override the clear textual distinction in the notification.

Conclusion: De-oiled cake was not covered by the concessional entry for oil cake, and the High Court was correct on that issue.

Issue (ii): Whether reassessment could be reopened where the original assessment had accepted the reduced rate on the basis of the available material and C Forms.

Analysis: Section 12-A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 permits reassessment where turnover has escaped assessment or has been assessed at a rate lower than the rate legally applicable. On the facts, the assessing authority had earlier accepted the material and granted the benefit after scrutiny. The reopening was based on a change of view on the same material rather than any fresh escapement of turnover, and reassessment on that basis was not justified.

Conclusion: Reopening of the assessment was impermissible, and the assessee was entitled to retain the benefit of the original assessment.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent that the reassessment could not be sustained, while the classification of de-oiled cake as distinct from oil cake under the notification was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A concessional tax notification must be strictly construed according to its express entries, and reassessment cannot be reopened merely because the authority later changes its view on the same material already considered in the original assessment.

---