Total turnover under sales tax law includes exempted turnover, and a later substantive amendment was not retrospective.

Under a levy computed on "total turnover", exempted turnover remained included in the turnover base and could not be excluded merely because it was not taxable; Rule 6 governed deductions for taxable turnover under the general charging scheme, not the meaning of total turnover under Section 3-D. The substituted form of Section 3-D was treated as a substantive amendment, not a clarificatory one, and therefore did not apply retrospectively to earlier assessment years absent express legislative intent. The writ petitions failed and the tax levy on the assessee's total turnover was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether exempted turnover formed part of the "total turnover" for the purpose of levy under Section 3-D; (ii) Whether the substitution of Section 3-D with effect from 01.04.1999 could be treated as clarificatory and applied retrospectively to the assessment years in question.

Issue (i): Whether exempted turnover formed part of the "total turnover" for the purpose of levy under Section 3-D.

Analysis: The concepts of total turnover, exempted turnover and taxable turnover were held to be distinct under the sales tax scheme. Total turnover was understood to include the aggregate turnover in all goods dealt with by the assessee, regardless of whether any part of it was liable to tax. The exemption of a turnover from tax did not remove it from the ambit of total turnover, though it may exclude it from taxable turnover. Section 3-D, as it stood, applied the flat rate on total turnover, and Rule 6 governed deductions for determining taxable turnover under the general charging provisions, not for redefining total turnover under Section 3-D.

Conclusion: Exempted turnover was held to remain part of total turnover, and the assessee was not entitled to exclude it for the purpose of Section 3-D.

Issue (ii): Whether the substitution of Section 3-D with effect from 01.04.1999 could be treated as clarificatory and applied retrospectively to the assessment years in question.

Analysis: The substitution was treated as a substantive change and not as a mere clarification. A substantive statutory amendment does not operate retrospectively unless the legislature expressly provides for such operation. The later substitution did not alter the conclusion for the prior assessment years, because the expression "total turnover" already governed the levy even before the amendment.

Conclusion: The amended provision was held not to apply retrospectively to the earlier assessment years.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed, and the levy of tax on the assessee's total turnover under Section 3-D was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Under a levy computed on "total turnover", exempted turnover remains included in total turnover unless the statute expressly excludes it, and a subsequent substantive amendment is not retrospective in the absence of clear legislative intent.

---