Exemption notifications must be construed by express terms; later instructions cannot add disqualifications or retrospectively curtail relief.

An exemption notification under section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 had to be read by its express terms, so traditional industries could not be excluded by implication from the eligible class of dealers. Prior subsidy and deferment schemes could not be imported to narrow the notification, and the Director of Industries was confined to verifying only the stated conditions. Subsequent executive instructions and deferment rules could not dilute the statutory exemption, and a later amendment could operate only prospectively, not retrospectively withdraw a benefit already available under the 1981 notification.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the exemption notification issued under section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 excluded traditional industries from its scope by implication or by reference to prior subsidy and deferment schemes. (ii) Whether subsequent executive instructions, deferment rules and the later amendment notification could validly restrict or take away the exemption otherwise available under the 1981 notification.

Issue (i): Whether the exemption notification issued under section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 excluded traditional industries from its scope by implication or by reference to prior subsidy and deferment schemes.

Analysis: The notification itself specified the eligible class of dealers, the districts, the commencement date and the conditions for obtaining the certificate from the Director of Industries. It did not expressly exclude traditional industries, and section 12 required that the restrictions and conditions governing exemption be specified in the notification itself. The earlier subsidy and loan schemes operated in a different context and could not be read into the later statutory notification so as to narrow the class of beneficiaries. The Director of Industries was required to verify only the conditions stated in the notification and could not add an extra disqualifying condition based on past administrative practice.

Conclusion: The notification did not exclude traditional industries, and the assessees were entitled to claim exemption if they satisfied the stated conditions.

Issue (ii): Whether subsequent executive instructions, deferment rules and the later amendment notification could validly restrict or take away the exemption otherwise available under the 1981 notification.

Analysis: Executive instructions could supplement but not control or dilute a statutory notification, and the doctrine of contemporanea expositio could not be used to enlarge the scope of restrictions not found in the notification. The deferment rules dealt with the alternative scheme of deferred payment and did not govern the substantive exemption under section 12. The later amendment notification, to the extent it purported to exclude industries that were within the original notification, could operate only prospectively because it in substance rescinded an earlier exemption and could not retrospectively withdraw the benefit already granted. The plea of promissory estoppel did not survive once the notification was construed in favour of the assessees.

Conclusion: The later instructions, deferment rules and amendment notification could not restrict or retrospectively withdraw the exemption under the 1981 notification.

Final Conclusion: The statutory notification was construed in favour of the assessees, the contrary view was rejected, and the exemption claimed under the 1981 notification was held to be available.

Ratio Decidendi: In taxation, an exemption notification must be construed by its express terms, and neither prior executive practice nor subsequent instructions can import an additional disqualification or curtail the exemption unless the notification itself, or a valid prospective amendment, clearly does so.

---