Binding tax classification determination survives successor VAT regime absent material statutory change; prospective aquatic-feed exemption did not reopen liability.

A prior determination that the product fell within the cattle feed exemption continued to bind the revenue under the successor VAT regime because the relevant exemption entry remained materially similar and the finality of questions already decided was preserved. The assessing authority therefore could not reopen the same classification issue or take a contrary view merely on the change of enactment. A later prospective exemption for aquatic feed did not amount to a clarificatory or retrospective change, and it did not show that the product had been taxable under the residuary entry for the earlier period. The assessment order was held to be without jurisdiction, and the writ petition succeeded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a prior determination order under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act continued to bind the authorities under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act in the absence of a material change in the taxing provisions; (ii) Whether the later exemption notification for aquatic feed created a material change so as to justify reopening the classification and taxing the product under the residuary entry.

Issue (i): Whether a prior determination order under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act continued to bind the authorities under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act in the absence of a material change in the taxing provisions.

Analysis: The earlier determination had conclusively held that the product fell within the cattle feed entry and was exempt. The later Act contained a materially similar exemption entry, and the successor provision on determination of disputed questions preserved the finality of questions already decided under the earlier law. In such circumstances, the assessing authority could not disregard the earlier binding determination merely because the VAT regime had come into force.

Conclusion: The prior determination remained binding on the Department and the assessing authority could not take a contrary view on the same classification issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the later exemption notification for aquatic feed created a material change so as to justify reopening the classification and taxing the product under the residuary entry.

Analysis: The exemption granted from 31.03.2012 was a prospective exemption and did not amount to a clarificatory or retrospective amendment altering the nature of the product or the earlier classification. The existence of a separate exemption for aquatic feed did not establish that the product was taxable earlier under the residuary entry. No material change in the relevant taxing entries was shown to justify ignoring the earlier determination.

Conclusion: The exemption notification did not justify reopening the issue or taxing the product under the residuary entry for the earlier period.

Final Conclusion: The assessment order was without jurisdiction because it contradicted a final and binding determination without any legally relevant change in the statutory scheme; the writ petition succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A final determination on taxability under the earlier enactment continues to bind the revenue under the successor enactment unless a material statutory change alters the basis of classification, and a prospective exemption by itself does not imply prior taxability under the residuary entry.

---