2004 (5) TMI 563 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Exemption claim on sale to foreign buyer against foreign currency.
2. Applicability or revival of specific notifications.

Analysis:
1. The case involves a dispute over the exemption claimed by the assessee on the sale of gems and jewellery to a foreign buyer against foreign currency. The assessing authority denied the exemption based on the rescission of a notification, leading to the disagreement. The Tribunal accepted the dealer's argument that earlier notifications were revived due to the rescinding of a subsequent notification. The main issue revolves around the interpretation of the notifications and the applicability of the exemption under section 4 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.

2. The notifications in question, namely Notification No. 2414 dated June 30, 1976, Notification No. 1603 dated July 18, 1977, and Notification No. 6946 dated September 30, 1977, were crucial in determining the conditions for exemption on sales to foreign tourists against foreign currency. The subsequent rescission of Notification No. 6946 dated September 30, 1977, by Notification No. 1672 dated May 1, 1981, led to a debate on whether the earlier notifications were revived. The Tribunal differentiated between the "supersession" and "rescinding" of notifications to support the dealer's claim.

3. The legal analysis delves into the interpretation of the U.P. General Clauses Act, particularly sections 6, 6C, and 7. Section 6 highlights the effects of repeal, emphasizing that the repeal of an enactment should not revive anything not in force at the time of repeal. Section 6C deals with the repeal or expiration of laws making textual amendments in other laws, providing clarity on the continuance of amendments post-repeal. Section 7 addresses the revival of repealed enactments, stating that unless expressly stated, a repealed enactment shall not be revived.

4. Referring to the Supreme Court's interpretation in a similar case, the judgment emphasizes that the revival of statutory rules or notifications is contingent upon specific legal provisions. In this context, the revocation of Notification No. 6946 dated September 30, 1977, by Notification No. 1672 dated May 1, 1981, does not automatically revive the earlier notifications. The legal framework outlined in the U.P. General Clauses Act clarifies the non-revival of superseded notifications upon the rescission of a subsequent notification.

5. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the Tribunal's order and dismissing the second appeal of the dealer. The judgment highlights the importance of legal clarity in interpreting notifications and upholding the principles outlined in the U.P. General Clauses Act to determine the applicability and revival of statutory provisions in tax matters.