Court sets aside orders, remits case for review. Corrigendum required for 1975 exemption. Proceedings within 8 weeks.

The court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the case back to the original authority for further consideration. The respondent was directed to issue a corrigendum regarding any notification repealing or withdrawing the 1975 exemption. If no such notification existed, the earlier assessment would stand. The proceedings were to be completed within eight weeks. The writ petitions were disposed of with the above directions, and no costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the exemption under Notification No.II(1)/CTE/38/76 dated 20.12.1975 after the amendment to Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
2. Requirement for a corresponding notification to repeal or amend the existing notification post-amendment.
3. Legality of the impugned orders passed by the respondent based on the deemed withdrawal of the notification.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the exemption under Notification No.II(1)/CTE/38/76 dated 20.12.1975 after the amendment to Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956:

The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, availed the benefit of Notification No.II(1)/CTE/38/76 dated 20.12.1975 for inter-State sales of surgical ECG Electrodes. The notification allowed a reduced tax rate for sales to educational institutions, hospitals, and research institutions not run for profit. However, Section 8(5) of the CST Act was amended on 11.05.2002, requiring sales to be made "to a registered dealer or the government" for exemption eligibility. Despite this amendment, the petitioner argued that the notification remained valid as it was not explicitly repealed or amended.

2. Requirement for a corresponding notification to repeal or amend the existing notification post-amendment:

The respondent contended that the exemption for sales to unregistered dealers was no longer valid post-amendment. The petitioner countered that the notification continued to be published and was not withdrawn. The court noted that the legislative policy reflected in the amended Act must be given effect through a corresponding amendment or withdrawal of the notification. The absence of such an amendment or withdrawal meant the notification remained in force.

3. Legality of the impugned orders passed by the respondent based on the deemed withdrawal of the notification:

The court referenced the Division Bench of the Mumbai High Court in Prism Cement Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra, which clarified that the 2002 amendment aimed to make furnishing of form 'C' mandatory and withdraw State Governments' power to waive this requirement. However, the amendment did not restrict the State Governments' power to grant exemptions under Section 8(2). The court found no evidence of a notification withdrawing the 1975 exemption. Therefore, the impugned orders, based on the assumption that the notification was deemed withdrawn, were unsustainable.

Conclusion:

The court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the case back to the original authority to pass a speaking order after allowing the petitioner to make additional submissions. The respondent was directed to issue a corrigendum detailing any notification repealing or withdrawing the 1975 notification. If no such notification existed, the earlier assessment would stand crystallized. The proceedings were to be completed within eight weeks, bringing closure to the issue.

Disposition:

The writ petitions were disposed of with the above observations, and no costs were awarded. Connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.

---