TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (11) TMI 639
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on July 25, 1990 which will be hereinafter called as first errata and errata by Lr. No. 8773/B1/89-18 dated April 30, 1991 published on May 29, 1991 which will be hereinafter called as second errata. In the other transferred petition, withdrawing of the concessional tax from 8 per cent to 4 per cent is challenged. The circumstances under which these T.Ps are filed ought to be narrated. The petitioner is a manufacturer of drugs, especially of penicillin derivatives and certain other formulations. The penicillin derivatives in the brand name are pressmox-P, pressmox-500, Amoxillin Dihydrate, etc. The Government of Tamil Nadu wanted to give certain concessions in the matter of tax, to certain important drugs. So in exercise of the powers unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... penicillin derivatives, he challenges in T.P. No. 2240 of 1997, the withdrawal of the drugs, namely, the derivatives of penicillin from the list of medicines found in the notification dated May 9, 1988 and as the rate of tax was raised from 4 per cent to 8 per cent by the errata, by withdrawal of the concession to penicillin derivatives, the T.P. No. 2241 of 1997, has been filed. 2.. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. K. Venkatasubramaniam raised two points in these T.Ps. and they are (1) exemptions and reduction of tax notified under section 17(1) of the Act can be withdrawn or taken away only by another notification under section 17(3) of the Act. But the publication of errata cannot affect the concessions enjoyed by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....published on July 25, 1990 (first errata) restricting the concession only to penicillin and streptomycin. As the word penicillin was wrongly spelled as "pencilline" the second errata to notification by letter of the CT&RE dated April 30, 1991 was published on May 29, 1991, correcting the spelling mistake and repeating that the concession was only to penicillin and streptomycin. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, errata is meant that correction of the typographical mistakes, but it cannot have the effect of law to take away the vested rights of a citizen and therefore except for the purpose of correcting the typographical errors like spelling mistakes, it cannot have the effect of nullifying the concession given under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ist of medicines, entitled to the reduced rate of tax, thereafter without publishing by another notification invoking the powers under section 17(3) of the Act, the Government had published the errata by the letter of CT&RE to delete some medicines from the list. No doubt the errata published on July 25, 1990 and May 29, 1991 may have the effect only with regard to mistake in the spelling. Beyond that, it, has no effect of withdrawing the concession granted in the original notification. Therefore abridging the drugs mentioned in item 9 of the list, including dihydro streptomycin in their pure form or as salt, the derivatives of penicillin and streptomycin which the State intended to remove from the list could not be deemed to have been remo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erving that the errata issued by the CT&RE has taken away the concession granted in the original notification. Rather the view of the assessing authorities was that the errata published on July 25, 1990 and May 29, 1991 have the retrospective effect from May 9, 1988 and therefore the petitioner is liable to pay tax at 8 per cent for the assessment year 1989-90 also. The learned counsel Mr. Venkatasubramaniam contended that section 17(1) no doubt empowers the Government to issue notification giving either prospective or retrospective effect, that section 17(1) refers to such notifications only for exemption or reduction in rate in respect of tax and therefore the retrospective effect can be given only to the concession given to the assessee,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e effect even if it is taken that it has the effect of cancellation. In G. Packirisamy & Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1995] 99 STC 21, the Madras High Court has held that the languages employed under section 17(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act makes it clear that power is not given in its fold to cancel or vary any notification with retrospective effect and therefore this power under section 17(3) can be exercised only prospectively. This Tribunal also considered this aspect in a recent decision in T.P. No. 413 of 1997, Chemi Boilers v. State of Tamil Nadu, dated November 13, 1998 (reported in [1999] 114 STC 381) and has taken the view that the executive authority cannot issue a notification retrospectively affecting the concession....