The contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that clarification provided by the Commissioner could not have been made applicable with retrospective effect is, in our considered opinion, without substance. The clarification vide Circular dated 8th October, 1998 was issued in exercise of power conferred by the statute (i.e., Section 28-A of the Act). Whenever a clarification pursuant to an application made by a registered dealer as to the applicable rate of tax is issued under sub-section (1), or the Commissioner on his own clarifies any point concerning the rate of tax under the Act, or the procedure relating to assessment and collection of tax as provided for under the Act is issued under sub-section (2), the object is to make the rate of tax explicit what is otherwise implicit. The contention as raised, if accepted, would defeat the object of issuing the clarification unless it were construed to have retrospective effect. What the clarification provided by the Commissioner does is to clear the meaning of the two entries which was already implicit but had given rise to a confusion. A clarification of this nature, therefore, is bound to be retrospective.
Also, having regard to the nature of clarification issued, we hold that Circular dated 8th October, 1998 does not run counter to the provisions of the Act.
SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT
Citation: 2023 STPL(WEB) 39 SC
SANTHOSH MAIZE & INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.
Civil Appeal No. 5731 of 2009 with Civil Appeal No. 5732 of 2009-Decided on 4-7-2023
Click to See Full Text of Judgment: 2023 STPL(WEB) 39 SC
