J. K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD.versusCOMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PALI

                        [2016] 5 S.C.R. 261


                 J. K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD.                                A
                                  v.
               COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PALI
                    (Civil Appeal No.102 of2010)
                       SEPTEMBER 16, 2016                                 B

           [DIPAK MISRA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.)
      Central Sales Tax Act, 1956:
       s.8(5) - Exemption from tax in respect of inter-State sales in
terms of notification dated 06.05.1986 - Subsequent notification          c
dated 07. 03.1994 issued with the condition that a dealer making
inter-State sales under this notification was not eligible to claim
benefit under notification dated 06. 05.1986 - Circular dated
15. 04.1994 issued under notification dated 07: 03.1994 in regard
to eligibility for benefit under notification dated 06. 05.1986 as well
                                                                          D
-Notification dated 07. 03.1994 rescinded by notification dated
12,03.1997 -Notification dated 21.01.2000 stated that dealer
claiming benefit under this notification cannot claim benefit under
notification dated 06. 05.1986 - Circular dated 16. 04.2001
withdrawing the circular dated 15.04.1994 and purporting to clarify
applicability of notification dated 06. 05.1986 vis-a-vis notification    E
dated 07.03.1994 and subsequent notifications dated 12.03.1997
and 21.01.2000 -Plea of assessee that notification dated 07.03.1994
having been re-introduced in the form of notification dated
21.01.2000, circular dated 15.04.1994 would equally apply and
guide the interpretation of notification of 21.01.2000 and thus
                                                                          F
assessee was entitled to simultaneous exemption/benefit under
notification dated 06.05.1986 as well as 21.01.2000 - Held: Clause
3 of the notification dated 21.01.2000 clearly lays down that benefit
under the two notifications cannot be claimed at the same time -
Fact that the third paragraph of the notification dated 21.01.2000
is identically worded to the third paragraph of the notification dated    G
07. 03.1994 would not justify the applicability of circular dated
 15. 04.1994 - Evidently, benefit and advantage was given under
circular dated 15. 04.1994 and not under the notification dated
07. 03.1994, which was lucid and couched in different terms -
Circular dated 15. 04.1994 was only applicable to notification dated
                                                                          H
                                 261
262           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2016] 5 S.C.R.


A     07.03.1994 and not specifically applicable to notification dated
      21.01.2000 - Once circular dated 15.04.1994 stood withdrawn vide
      circular dated 16.04.2001, appellant-assessee cannot claim the
      benefit of the withdrawn circular -Therefore, appe/lant-assessee
      cannot claim benefit of two notifications at the same tih1e -
      Notifreation No.F.4(72)FD I Gr. JV/ 81-18, S.O. 23, May 6, 1986 -
B
      Notification No.F.4 (8) FD/ Gr.JV/94-70 S.O. No.200, Jaipur, dated
      March 7, 1994 -Tax policy circular No.2194-95,dated 15.4.1994 -
      Notification No.97-122 dated 12.03.1997 - Notification No.F.4(1)
      FD/Tax Div.97-266, Jaipur, dated 21January,2000 - Circular No.F-
      16 (Budget) Tax/CCT/94-951119 dated April 16, 2001.
c           Doctrines/Principles:
            Doctrine of 'contemporanea exposition' - Applicability of -
      Discussed - Held: On facts, the language employed in paragraph
      3 of the inter-State tax exemption notification dated 21.01.2000, is
      not ambiguous or susceptible to two views of interpretations -
D     Language being plain and clear, it does not admit of two different
      interpretations - Doctrine of contemporanea exposition, therefore,
      would not apply to the notification dated 21.01.2000.
            Dismissing the appeals, the Court

 E           HELD: 1. Notification dated 21.01.2000 applies to a dealer
      having a place of business in the State and is in respect of sale of
      cement made by him from any place of business within the State
      in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Apart from the
      above, certain other conditions are to be satisfied. They are (a)
      sales-tax in respect of inter-State sales as per the notification
 F    would be calculated at the of 6% and (b) the dealer making inter-
      State sales under notification dated 21.01.2000 would not be
      eligible to claim benefit provided in the notification dated
      06.05.1986. Clanse 3 of the notification lays down that if a dealer
      claims benefit under notification dated 21.01.2000, he is not
G     eligible to claim the benefit under notification dated 06.05.1986.
      Benefit under the two notifications cannot be claimed at the same
      time. It is simple and clear. (Para 17) (270-H; 271-A-BJ
            2. Once circular dated 15.04.1994 stands withdrawn vide
      circular dated 16.04.2001, the appellant-assessee cannot claim
      the benefit of the withdrawn circular. The controversy centred
H
       J. K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD. v. COMMERCIAL TAX                      263
                       OFFICER, PALI

 round the period from 1" April, 2001 to 31" March, 2002. The           A
 period in question was mostly post the circular dated 16.04.2001.
 The appellant-assessee had pleaded to take benefit of the circular
 dated 15.04.1994, which stands withdrawn and was only applicable
 to the notification dated 07.03.1994. It was not specifically
 applicable to the notification dated 21.01.2000. The fact that the
                                                                         B
 third paragraph of the notification dated 21.01.2000 was identically
 worded to the third paragraph of the notification dated 07.03.1994
 would not by itself justify the applicability of circular dated
 15.04.1994. [Paras 26, 27) [276-B-D)
       3. The circular dated 15.04.1994 was ambiguous and,
 therefore, as long as it was in operation and applicable possibly       c
 doctrine of contemporanea exposition could be taken aid of for its
 applicability. The benefit and advantage was given under the
 circular and not under the notification dated 07.03.1994, which
 was lucid and couched in different terms. The circular had been
 withdrawn, the contention of co11temporanea exposition did not          D
 commend acceptation and had to be repelled. It would certainly
 not apply to the notification dated 21.01.2000. [Para 29) [277-A-
  B)
       GP. Singh 's Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 13•h
       Edition-2012                                                      E
       Tata Cummins Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand 2006 (16) Tax
       update 199; Mis Vividh Marbles Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial
       Tax Officer 2007 (17) Tax update 307; State of
       Rajasthan v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. and another
       (2004) 137 STC 438; MRF Ltd. Kottayam v. Asstt.
       Commissioner (Assessment) Sales Tax and ors. (2006)               F
       8 SCC 702: 2006 (6) Suppl. SCR 417; Rohitash Kumar
       and others v. Om Prakash Sharma and others (2013)
       11 SCC 451 : 2012 (13) SCR 47 - UCO Bank, Calcutta
       v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal (1999) 4
       SCC 599: 1999 (3) SCR 635; Co111111issioner of Central            G
•
       Excise, Bolpur v. Ratan Melting and Wire Industries
       (2008) 13 SCC 1 : 2008 (14) SCR 653 - referred to.
                        Case Law Reference
  2006 (16) Tax update 199      referred to                Para 12
  2007 (17) Tax update 307      referred to                Para 12       H
264            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2016] 5 S.C.R.


A     (2004) 137 STC 438              referred to               Para 12
      2006 (6) Suppl. SCR 417         referred to               Para 12
      1999 (3) SCR 635                referred to               Para 25
      2008 (14) SCR 653               referred to               Para26
      70J2 (13) SCR 47                referred to               Para28
B
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. I02 of
      2010.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 17.04.2009 in S.B. Civil Sales
      Tax Revision Petition No. 613 of 2005 passed by the High Court of
      Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur.
c           S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv., U. A. Rana, Ms. Mrinal Elkar Azumdar,
      Himanshu Mehta (for Mis Gagrat & Co.) Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Mil ind
      Kumar, AOR Ad vs. for the appearing parties.
            The Judgment of the Court was deli~ered by
            DIPAK MISRA, J.
D
             Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2010 I. The appellant is a Public
      Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and
      engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling Grey Portland
      Cement. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 8(5) of the Central
      Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, "CST Act"), the Government ofRajasthan
E     had issued a Notification No. F4(72)FD/Gr.IV/81-18 dated 06.05.1986
      allowing partial exemptions from the sales tax payable in respect of
      inter-State sales in the manner and subject to the conditions mentioned
      therein. Partial exemption was granted under the said notification at the
      rate of50%/75% on the basis of increase in the percentage of the entire
 F    inter-State sales and decrease in percentage of stock transfers but the
      benefit under the said notification was not available on levy cement.
      From the assessment year 1989-90 to 1997-98 the appellant had been
      granted benefit of partial exemption under the notification dated
      06.05.1986 except for the assessment year 1995-96 and 1996-97 as no
      claims were made by the appellants being not eligible.
G
             2. It is necessary to state here that the State, in exercise of
      powers conferred by Section 8(5) of the CST Act, issued Notification
      No. F4(8)FD/GR.IV/94-70 dated 07.03.1994 superseding the notification
      dated 09.01.1990 and directing that in respect of inter-State sales of
      cement, tax payable under sub-sections (1) and (2) of the said Section
H     shall be calculated at the rate of4% without furnishing declaration in
     J. K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD. v. COMMERCIAL TAX                                   265
              OFFICER, PALI [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

Form 'C', inter alia, subject to the condition that the dealer making              A
inter-State sales under this notification shall not be eligible to claim benefit
provided by partial exemption notification dated 06.05.1986. This
notification remained in force from 01.04.1994 to 31.03.1997.
       3. The CCT vide Circular No. 2/94-95 dated 15.04.1994 clarified
that inter-State sales of cemerit duly supported by 'C' and 'D' forms              B
shall be eligible for benefit of partial exemption notification dated
06.05 .1986 and that such benefit would not apply to inter-State sales
which are not supported by declarations in declarations in Forms 'C'/
'D'.
       4. By Notification No. 97-122 dated 12.03.1997 issued under                 c
Section 8(5) of the CST Act, the State Government rescinded the
Notification No. 94-70 dated 07.03.1994 and directed that CST on inter-
State sales of cement shall be calculated at the rate of 4% inter a/ia
subject to fulfilment of the condition that the dealer making inter-State
sales under this notification shall not be eligible to claim benefit provided
by partial exemption notification dated 06.05 .1986. This notification             D
remained in force upto 31.03.1998.
       5. As the factual score has been depicted, for the assessment
year 1997-98, dispute arose whether the sale of levy cement in the base
year, i.e., 1984-85, can be included and taken into consideration for
calculating the base year's figure for the purpose of calculating the               E
benefits under the notification dated 06.05.1986. A re-assessment notice
was issued to the appellant for disallowing the said partial exemption on
the ground that while calculating the benefits under notification dated
06.05.1986 the appellant-company had not included the figure of sale of
levy cement made in the base year, that is, 1984-85. The said re-                   F
assessment notice was challenged by the appellant which formed the
subject matter of Writ Petition No. 1790 of2001 which was dismissed
by the Rajasthan High Court vide order dated 24.07.2002. A Special
Appeal bearing No. 497 of 2002 was filed against the order dated
24.07.2002 before the Division Bench and on a reference being made
by the Division Bench, the matter was referred to a larger Bench and               G
the same is pending consideration. A similar dispute about inclusion of
levy cement had also arisen for the assessment year 1991-92 which had
been decided by the Tax Board, Rajasthan vide order dated 16.01.2003
in favour of the appellant which attained finality since no revision petition
was filed by the State against the said decision. For the assessment               H
266            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2016] 5 S.C.R.



A     year 1999-2000, the appellant was asked vide show cause notice dated
      16. I 0.200 I to explain why the benefit of partial exemption under
      notification dated 06.05 .1986 s~ould not be disallowed on the ground
      that while calculating the benefits under notification dated 06.05.1986
      the appellant had not included the figure of sale of levy cement made in
      the base year, that is, 1984-85. Against the said show cause notice writ
B
      petition bearing No. 4300 of 2001 was filed and vide order dated
      14.08.2002 the High Court disposed of the said writ petition in light of
      the order dated 24.07 .2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 1790 of 2001.
      Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant had filed a DB Special
      Appeal No. 539 of 2002 which is pending consideration. We may
c     immediately clarify that we are not concerned with the said assessment
      years.
             6. For the assessment year 2000-2001, a Show Cause Notice
      dated 11.01.2001 was issued to the appellant seeking to disallow the
      benefit under notification dated 06.05 .1986 on the ground that the
D     appellant had not calculated the benefits under notification dated
      06.05.1986 after including the figure of sale of levy cement in the base
      year, that is, 1984-85. Against the said show cause notice Writ Petition
      bearing No. 551 of 2002 was filed which is pending before the High
      Court.

 E           7. In exercise of power under Section 8(5) of the CST Act the
      State Government vide Notification No. 97-266 dated 21.1.2000 directed
      that tax payable under sub-sections ( 1) and (2) of the said Section on the
      inter-State sales of cement shall be calculated at the rate of 6% inter
      alia subject to the condition that the dealer making inter-State sales
      under this notification shall not be eligible to claim benefit provided under
 F    partial exemption notification dated 06.05.1986.
             8. After a lapse of seven years from the previous circular dated
      15.04.1994, the CCT issued another Circular No. 94-95/119 dated
      16.04.2001 purporting to clarify the applicability of partial exemption
      notification dated 06.05 .1986 vis-a-vis notification dated 07 .03 .1994 and
 G    subsequent notifications dated 12.03.1997 and 21.01.2000. By the said
      circular the competent authority purported to state that the dealer can
      avail of the benefit of either of these two notifications in any financial
      year meaning thereby that if he opts for the benefit under notification
      dated 06.05.1986 for the year 2000-200 I, he would not be entitled to
H     claim simultaneous benefit in respect of the same year under the
     J. K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD. v. COMMERCIAL TAX                                267
              OFFICER, PALI [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

notification dated 21.01.2000.                                                  A
       9. For the assessment year 2000-2001, a show cause notice dated
19.08.2003 was issued by the Commercial Taxes Officer to the appellant
seeking to disallow the benefits under notification dated 06.05 .1986 on a
purported retrospective application of the Circular dated 16.04.200 I.
Appellant challenged the said show cause notice before the High Court           B
by way of a Writ Petition bearing No. 6192 of 2003. The High Court
vi de order dated 18.11.2003 held that the said show cause notice dated
19.08.2003 was not justified as Circular dated 16.04.2001 could apply
only prospectively and not retrospectively.
      10. While finalizing the assessment for the assessment year 2001-         c
2002, a show cause notice dated 19.08.2003 was issued purportedly
based on Circular dated 16.04.200 I requiring the appellant to show cause
why the partial exemption claimed under State Government's notification
No. F4(72)FD/Gr.IV/81-18 dated 06.05.1986 should not bed isallowed.
The appellant submitted its reply but the assessing authority vide order
dated 26.08.2003 rejected the claim of par(ial exemption only on the            D
basis of Circular dated 16.04.200 I and imposed additional tax on the
assessee for the assessment year 2001-2002.
        11. The appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner
(Appeals), who allowed the appeal on 03.01.2004 holding that the
appellant would be entitled to avail such partial exemption in respect of       E
inter-State sales made on which concessional rate of 6% was not availed
of by it under notification dated 21.01.2000.
        12. Being aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the
revenue approached the Rajasthan Tax Board in appeal contending, inter
alia, that as per circular dated 16.04.200 I the benefit could not be claimed    F
under notification dated 06.05.1986 if the unit had made sales under
notification dated 21.01.2000. In essence, it was urged that benefit of
both the notifications could not be availed of in the same financial year.
The Tax Board allowed the appeal filed by the revenue. Against the
order of the Tax Board, the appellant filed revision petition before the        G
High Court and the learned Single Judge vide order dated 17.04.2009
considering the submissions put forth by the parties and upon analysing
the principle stated in Tllta Cummins Ltd. v. State of Jltarkltand1, Mis
Vivid/1 Marbles Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer1 , State of
1 2006 ( 16) Tax update 199
2 2007 ( 17) Tax update 307                                                     H
268             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2016] 5 S.C.R.



A     Rajast/1an v. J.K. Utlaipur Udyog Ltd. anti a11otlter1, MRF Ltd.
      Kottayam v. Asstt. Commissioner (Assessment) Sales Tax and ors. 4
      and other authorities came to hold that condition no. 3 of Notification
      No. 21.01.2000 has to be given its plain and clear meaning and cannot
      be restricted only to the specific transaction of sale covered by notification
      dated 21.01.2000 itself and when the condition no. 3 unequivocally states
B
      that once the assessee avails of the benefit of concessional rate of tax
      under notification dated 21.01.2000, he cannot get the partial benefit as
      envisaged in the Notification dated 06.05.1986 and accordingly repelled
      the stand of the assessee.
            13. We have heard Mr. S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel for the
c     appellant and Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, learned counsel for the
      respondent.
             14. The seminal issue that arises for consideration, succinctly put,
      is whether the appellant is entitled to dual benefit of partial exemption
      under the notification dated 06.05.1986 and also the lower rate of tax@
D     6% under notification dated 21.01.2000. To answer the issue raised, it is
      necessary to refer to the notifications and the language employed therein
      to ascertain the fundamental intention therein and to appreciate whether
      grant of simultaneous exemptions and benefits would be contrary to the
      said notifications. The first notification dated 06.05.1986 reads as under:-
 E           "Notification No.F.4(72)FD/Gr.IV/81-18, S.O. 23, May 6,
             1986.
             In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of section ·
             8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956( Central Act 74of1956), the
             State Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary so to do
 F           in the public interest, in supersession of the Finance Department
             Notification No. F.4 (72) FD/Gr. IV/81-36, dated December 3,
             1985, hereby directs that, with immediate effect, any dealer, having
             his place of business and manufacturing goods in the State of
             Rajasthan, may claim partial exemption from the tax payable in
 G           respect of the sales by him of such goods in the course of inter-
             State trade or commerce by way of reduction at the rate of 50%
             of the tax so payable on increased sales upto 50% and at the rate
             of 75% of the tax so payable on increased sales made over and
             above the aforesaid 50%, in the manner and subject to the
      3
        (2004) 137 STC 438
H     '(2006) s sec 102
J. K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD. v. COMMERCIAL TAX                               269
         OFFICER, PALI [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

 conditions as follows:-                                                  A
 ( 1) Such reduction of tax shall be allowed to a dealer only after
 and in respect of the increase which is effected in the percentage
 of the quantum of goods sold in the course of inter-State trade or
 commerce out of the total quantum of goods sold within the State
 and in the course of inter-State trade or commerce and dispatched         B
 to Head Office, Branch Office, Depot or agent outside the State
 for sale outside the State, during any accounting year as against
 such percentage during the accounting year 1984-85.
 (2)In the case of a dealer who commenced the manufacture of
 goods in the State ofRajasthan "on or after 1.1.1985", the average        c
 of the aforesaid percentages in respect of the other manufacturers
 in the State in the relevant industry during the accounting year
  I 984-85, calculated and determined by the assessing authority
 with the approval of the Commissioner, shall be deemed to be the
 percentage in respect of such dealer for the accounting year 1984-
 85;                                                                       D

 (3) This increase effected in the percentage, as referred to in
 clause ( 1) above in respect of the sales in the course of inter-
 state trade or commerce, to be considered shall be limited to the
 extent of the decrease in the percentage in respect of the despatch
 of goods to Head Office, Branch Office, Depot or agent outside            E
 the State for sale outside the State, during the relevant accounting
 year as against such percentage during the accounting year 1984-
 85; and
 (4) No claim for such reduction of tax shall be allowed in respect
 of levy-cement." ,                                                        F
 15.The notification dated 21.01.2000 is as under:-
               "!No.F.4(1) FDffax Div. 97-2661
                   Jaipur, 21!! January, 2000
 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of section
                                                                           G
 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 the State Government being
 satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby
 directs that the tax payable under sub-sections ( 1) and (2) of the
 said section, by any dealer having his place of business in the
 State, in respect of sale of cement made by him from any such
 place of business in the State, in the course of inter-state trade or     H
270            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016) 5 S.C.R.



A           commerce, shall be calculated at the rate of 6% on the fol lowing
            conditions, namely:-
            !. That the dealer shall record the correct name with full and
            complete address of the purchaser in the bill or cash memorandum
            for such inter-State sale to be issued by him;
B          ·2. That the burden of proof that the transaction was in the nature
            of inter-State sale shall be on the dealer; and
            3. Thllt the dealer making inter-State sales under this notification
            shall not be eligible to claim benefits provided by notification
            No.F.4(72) FD/GR.IV/81-18 dated 6.5.1986 as amended from
c           time to time."
            16. On a careful scanning of the notification dated 06.05.1986, it
    is evident that it allows partial exemption from sales-tax on inter-State
    sales, subject to and in the manner stipulated therein. The exemption of
    75% or 50% is granted with reference to the quantum of goods sold in
D the course of inter-State trade or commerce out of the total quantum of
    goods sold within the State, as against such percentage during the
    accounting year 1984-85, which is treated as the base year. As per the
    notification, it is applicable to a dealer who has his place of business; and
    he must be manufacturing goods inside the State. The intention is to
E encourage inter-State sale of goods manufactured and sold by a dealer
    in the State of Rajasthan. It has a purpose. The increase in quantum of
    goods sold in inter-State trade or commerce with reduction in quantum
    of stock transfers by way of branch or depot transfers on which NIL or
    no Central Sales tax is applicable would increase the revenue of the
    State. Clause 4 of the notification envisages that no reduction of tax is
F · to be allowed in respect oflevy cement. Computation of the total quantum
    of goods with reference to the exclusion of levy cement is not a subject
    matter of the present appeal and that is pending for consideration before
    the Appellate Bench and Single Judge of the High Court. Nevertheless,
    it is apparent that changes in figures of the quantum of goops, whether
G with reference to inter-State sales and intra-State sales in the base year
    and in the year in which benefit is claimed, would impact the determination
    and quantification of the benefit. Therefore, the exclusion or inclusion in
    the quantum or turnover is critical and significant.
             17. The 21.01.2000 notification applies to a dealer having a place
      of business in the State and is in respect of sale of cement made by him
 H
    J. K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD. v. COMMERCIAL TAX                                 271
             OFFICER, PALI [DIPAK MISRA, J.)

from any place of business within the State in the course of inter-State A
trade or commerce. Apart from the above, certain other conditions are
to be satisfied. They are (a) sales-tax in respect of inter-State sales as _
per the notification would be calculated at the rate of 6% and (b) the
dealer making inter-State sales under notification dated 21.01.2000 would
not be eligible to claim benefit provided in the notification dated
                                                                             B
06.05.1986. Clause 3 of the notification lays down that if a dealer claims
benefit under notification dated 21.01.2000, he is not eligible to claim the
benefit under notification dated 06.05.1986. Benefit under the two
notifications cannot be claimed at the same time. It is simple and clear.
       18. A dealer making inter-State sales under the notification dated
21.01.2000 is disqualified and not eligible to claim benefit under the
                                                                                 c
notification dated 06.05.1986. The reason is to deny dual benefit and
also the notification dated 06.05.1986 computes the benefit on the basis
of turnover. Bifurcation and division of turnover would lead to distortion
and cause anomalies.
        19. To get over the aforesaid impasse, the learned counsel for the       D
appellant has raised three contentions. The two notifications being
beneficial should be liberally construed, for it cannot be assumed that
the intendment was that )f an assessee claims and was entitled to a
relatively small or partial exemption undernotification dated 06.05.1986,
he would be deprived of the exemption even ifhe meets the conditions             E
in paragraphs I and 2 ofthe notification dated 21.01.2000. The submission
is that the assessee can get benefit of both the notifications but not the
dual benefit in the sense that inter-State sales on which benefit of
concessional rate of tax of6% is not availed of could be granted partial
exemption under notification dated 06.05.1986. Quite apart from the
aforesaid argument, it is urged that partial exemption could be granted          F
under the notification dated 06.05.1986 in respect of such intra- State
sales not covered by the notification dated 21.01.2000; and benefit of
partial exemption under notification dated 06.05.1986 would co-exist with
the notification dated 21.01.2000, though in respect ofdifferent and distinct
transactions. The second limb of argument is that this interpretation            G
was the understanding of the respondents, as they had issued circular
dated 15.04.1994 and pursuant to the said circular, the appellant and the
other assessees were extended benefit of the notification dated
06.05.1986 and also the notification dated 07.03.1994, which has now
been replaced and re-introduced in the form of notification dated
                                                                                 H
272             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2016] 5 S.C.R.



A     21.01.2000. The plea of consistency especially when the revenue in
      earlier years had accepted the said interpretation is highlighted. The last
      plank of argument is the circular dated 15.04.1994 was clarificatory and
      had rightly interpreted and expounded the interplay between the two
      notifications. Therefore, the circular dated 15.04.1994 under the
      notification dated 07 .03.1994 would equally apply and would guide the
B
      interpretation of the notification dated 21.01.2000.
            20. In order to appreciate the contentions raised, it is imperative
      to reproduce notification dated 07.03.1994 and the circular dated
      15.04.1994; and the circular dated 16.04.2001 by which circular dated
      15.04.1994 was withdrawn. The notification dated 07.03.1994 reads as
c     under:-
            "Notification No.F.4 (8) FD/Gr.IV/94-70 S.O. No. 200,
            Jaipur, dated March 7, 1994.
             In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of section
D            8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act 74 of 1956),
             and in supersession of this Department Notification No.F.4 (72)
             FD/Gr.IV /82-34, dated 27 .06.1990, the State Government being
             satisfied that itis necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby
             directs that the tax payable under sub-sections (I) and (2) of the
             said section, by any dealer having his place of business in the
E           .State, in respect of the sales of cement made by him from any
             such place of business in the course of inter-State trade or
             commerce shall be calculated at the rate of 4 percent without
             furnishing of declaration in form "C" or certification in form "D"
             on the following conditions, namely:-
 F           (i) that the dealer shall record the name and full and complete
             address of the purchaser in the bill or cash memorandum for such
             inter-State sale to be issued by him;
             (ii) that the burden to prove that the transaction was in the nature
             of inter-State sale, shall be on the dealer; and
G            (iii) that the dealer making inter-State sales under this notification
             shall not be eligible to claim benefit provided for by the notification
             No.F.4. (72) FD/Gr.IV/81-18, dated 6.5.1986, as amended from
             time to time.
             This notification shall come into force from I" April, 1994 and
             shall remain in force upto 31." March, 1997."
H
   J. K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD. v. COMMERCIAL TAX                                 273
            OFFICER, PALI [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

  21. The circular dated 15.4.1994 is reproduced below:-                       A
                     "Tax Policy circular No.2/94-95
                        STATE OF RAJASTHAN
                  COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT
     No. Pa. I 6/Budget/Tax/Commissioner/94-95/108
                                                         Dated 15/4/1994        B
     To,
     All Deputy Commissioners, Commercial Tax
     All Assistant Commissioners, Commercial Tax
     All Commercial/Assistant Commercial Tax Officers
                                                                                c
                                   Circular
     The notification No. Pa. 4 (8) FD/Group-4/94-70 dated 7/3/1994
     was issued by the State Government and the rate of central tax
     on the inter-State sale of cement is fixed unconditionally at 4 percent
     in case the declaration form-'C' or form-'D' is not submitted
                                                                                D
     between 1/4/1994 to 31/3/1997. Under the said notification the
     trader doing the inter-State sale shall not be entitled to claim for
     the benefit made available through the notification No. F4 (72)
     FD/Group-4/61-18 dated 6/5/1986 amended from time to time.
     It is made clear in this respect that the benefits made available
     through the notification No. F 4 (72) FDR-Group-4/81-18 dated              E
     6/511986 as amended from time to time with respect to the inter-
     State sale of the cement done with the form-'C' or form-'D', but
     aforesaid benefit sh.all not be available in case the inter-State sale
     is done without the form-.'C' or form-'D' ."
   22.The circular dated 16.04.2001 withdrawing the circular dated              F
15.04.1994 is as follows:-
                  "GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN
                COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT
      No.F-16 (Budget) Tax/CCT/94-95/119 Dated April 16th, 2001
     All Dy. Commissioners                                                      G
     All Assistant Commissioners
     All Commercial Taxes Officers.
     All Assistant Commercial Taxes Officers.
                                 CIRCULAR
     A question has been raised as to the applicability of Finance              H
274             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2016] 5 S.C.R.



A           Department notification No.F.4(72)FD/Br.IV I 81-18 dated
            06.05.1986 vis-a-vis, notification No.F/(8) FD/Gr.IV194- 70 dated
            07.03.1994 and similar subsequent notification dated 12.03.1997
            and the existing notification dated 21.01.2000. The issue has been
            examined and it is clarified that a dealer can avail the benefit of
            either of these two notifications in any financial year. For instance,
B
            if he opts for benefit under notification dated 06.05.1986 for the
            financial year 2000-2001, he would not be entitled to claim
            simultaneous benefit in the same year under the notification
            providing for reduce rate of tax on cement in course of inter-state
            trade or commerce without any supportive Form C or D.
c           Consequently, if the benefit of notification dated 21.01.2000 is
            being availed in any financial year, the dealer shall be debarred
            from claiming any benefit under notification dated 6.5.1986 for
            the same assessment year.
            Keeping in view the above status, the Circular No.F.16
D           (Budget)Tax/CCT/94-95/108 dated 15.04.1994 is hereby
            withdrawn and the dealers will be entitled to claim benefit of either
            of the two notifications in any financial year. Action may be taken
            accordingly.                                           ·
             Sd/-
             (P.K.Deb) Commissioner"
E
             23. As the factual score would depict, Notification dated 07 .03. I 994
      was applicable from 1st April, 1994 to 31st March, 1997. It was not
      applicable with effect from I" April, I 997. In such a situation, the plea
      of the appellant that dual benefits were availed of under notification
      dated 07 .03 .1994 post I st April, 1997 is unacceptable and has to be
F     rejected. Be it noted, by anothernotification No. 97-122 dated 12.03 .1997,
      the State Government had rescinded notification dated 07.03.1994 and
      directed that the Central Sales Tax shall be calculated@4%, subject to
      the condition that the dealer making inter State sales in this notification
      would not be eligible to claim benefit of partial exemption und.er the
G     notification dated 06.05.1986. The notification dated 12.03.1997 had
      remained in force upto 31st March, 1998. The circular dated I 5.04.1994
      in express words was not applicable to the noti_fication dated 21.01.2000.
            24. lt is limpid that the circular dated 15.04.1994, when in force,
      had referred to the notifications dated 07.03.1994 as well as 06.05.1986.
      Under the notification dated 07 .03 .1994, the rate ofcentral tax on inter-
H
    J. K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD. v. COMMERCIAL TAX                                 275
             OFFICER, PALI [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

State sale of cement was unconditionally fixed at 4%, even when there           A
was no declaration in Form C and Form D. The notification dated
06.05.1986 relating to inter-State sale required Form C and Form D, for
availing the benefit. The circular did not in clear and categorical terms
lay down that dual or multiple benefits under the two notifications could
be availed of by the same dealer. It, however, appears that both the
                                                                                 B
assessee and the Revenue had understood the circular dated 15.04.1994
to mean that inter-State transactions would qualify and would be entitled
to partial exemption under the notification dated 06.05.1986, when
accompanied with Form C and D and for inter-State sale transactions
without Form C and D, benefit of notification dated 07.03.1994 would
apply.                                                                           c
        25. The understanding by the assessee and the Revenue, in the
obtaining factual matrix, has its own limitation. It is because the principle
of res judicata would have no application in spite of the understanding
by the assessee and the Revenue, for the circular dated 15.04.1994, is
not to the specific effect as suggested and, further notification dated          D
07.03.1994 was valid between 1" April, I 994 up to 31" March, 1997
(upto 31" March, 1997 vide notification dated 12.03.1997) and not
thereafter. The Commercial Tax Department, by a circular, could have
extended the benefit under a notification and, therefore, principle of
estoppel would apply, though there are authorities which opine that a
circular could not have altered and restricted the notification to the           E
determent of the assessee. Circulars issued under tax enactments can
tone down the rigour oflaw, for an authority which wields power for its
own advantage is given right to forego advantage when required and
considered necessary. This power to issue circulars is for just, proper
and efficient management of the .work and in public interest. It is a            F
beneficial power for proper administration of fiscal law, so that undue
hardship may not be caused. Circulars are binding on the authorities
administering the enactment but cannot alter the provision of the
enactment, etc. to the detriment of the assessee. Needless to emphasise
that a circular should not be adverse and cause prejudice to the assessee.
(See : UCO Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West                    G
Benga/   5 ).

      26. In Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur v. Ratan
Melting and Wire lndustries6, it has been held that circulars and
'(1999) 4 sec 599
• (2008) 13 sec 1                                                                H
276               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2016] 5 S.C.R.


A     instructions issued by the Board are binding on the authorities under
      respective statute, but when this Court or High Court Jays down a principle,
      it would be appropriate for the Court to direct that the circular should not
      be given effect to, for the circulars are not binding on the Court. In the
      case at hand, once circular dated 15.04.1994 stands withdrawn vide
      circular dated 16.04.2001, the appellant-assessee cannot claim the benefit
B
      of the withdrawn circuJat
             27. The controversy herein centres round the period from 1"April,
      2001 to 31" March, 2002. The period in question is mostly post the
      circular dated 16.04.2001. As we find, the appellant-assessee has pleaded
      to take benefit of the circular dated 15.04.1994, which stands withdrawn
c     and was only applicable to the notification dated 07.03.1994. It was not
      specifically applicable to the notification dated 21.01.2000. The fact that
      the third paragraph of the notification dated 21.01.2000 is identically
      worded to the third paragraph of the notification dated 07 .03 .1994 but
      that would not by itself justify the applicability of circular dated
D      15.04.1994.
             28. In this context, we may note another contention that has been
      advanced before us. It is based upon the doctrine of contemporanea
      exposition. In our considered opinion, the said doctrine would not be
      applicable and cannot be pressed into service. Usage or practice
E     developed under a statute is indicative of the meaning prescribed to its
      words by contemporary opinion. In case of an ancient statute, doctrine
      of contemporanea exposition is applied as an admissible aid to its
      construction. The doctrine is based upon the precept that the words
      used in a statutory provision must be understood in the same way in
      which they are usually understood in ordinary common parlance by the
 F    people in the area and business. (See: GP. Singh 's Principles of
      Statutory Interpretation, J3 1h Edition-2012 at page 344). It has been
      held in Rohitash Kumar and others v. Om Prakash Sharma and
      others' that the said doctrine has to be applied with caution and the
      Rule must give way when the language of the statute is plain and
G     unambiguous. On a careful scrutiny of the language employed in
      paragraph 3 of the notification dated 21.01.2000, it is difficultto hold that
      the said notification is ambiguous or susceptible to two views of
      interpretations. The language being plain and clear, it does not admit of
      two different interpretations.
      7
H         (2013) II SCC451
    J. K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD. v. COMMERCIAL TAX                                277
             OFFICER, PALI [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

        29. In this regard, we may state that the circular dated 15.04.1994    A
was ambiguous and, therefore, as long as it was in operation and applicable
possibly doctrine of contemporanea exposition could be taken aid of
for its applicability. It is absolutely clear that the benefit and advantage
was given under the circular and not under the notification dated
07 .03 .1994, which was lucid and couched in different terms. The circular
                                                                                B
having been withdrawn, the contention of contemporanea exposition
does not commend acceptation and has to be repelled and we do so.
We hold that it would certainly not apply to the notification dated
21.01.2000.
       30. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we do not find any merit in
the instant appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall
                                                                                c
be no order as to costs.
Civil Appeal No. 6136 of 2013
        31.In view of the judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. I 02 of
20 I 0, this appeal also stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to        D
costs.
Ankit Gyan                                                Appeals dismissed.