- (1.) THIS revision has been filed against an order of the Sales Tax Officer, Ajmer City, dated 30. 11. 60. One and only one point is involved for determination in this revision namely interpretation of Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules 1955. THIS Rule runs as follows: - "19. Continuity of previous certificate : - (1) All the registration certificates which were valid up to the 31st March, 1960, shall if not otherwise cancelled thereafter, continue upon payment before the 30th November, 1960, of rupees ten, to be valid for the purposes of sec. 66. (2) The assessing authority upon receipt of the aforesaid fee of Rs. 10/- shall make the following endorsement on any such certificate, namely: - "the dealer has paid a fee of Rs. 10/- and this certificate shall continue to be valid for the purposes of sec. 6. "
(2.) THIS rule provides for continuity of previous certificates. THIS rule was published in the Rajasthan Gazette Part IV, dated 1st October, 1960. The old rule provided for renewal of registration certificates. Obviously with a view to grant relief to the assessees annual renewal was done away with and a provision was made in the new rule for continuity of the previous registration certificate. THIS rule lays down three ingredients as below: (a) Validity upto 31st March, 1960. (b) No previous cancellation otherwise. (c) Payment of Rs. 10/-upto 30th November, 1960. It has been admitted by the oppositeparty before us that the certificate of the applicant was valid upto 31st March, 1960, that it was not cancelled previously and that Rs. 10/- have been paid before 30th November, 1960. The only point of difference is that a sum of Rs. 2/-was paid by the the applicant for renewal under the old rule and according to the opposite party this would not be treated as a payment under the new rule. Obviously there is no justification for this view. The very fact that the rule refers to 31st March, 1960 makes it abundantly clear that renewal for a period after this date and any payment made in that behalf were not to be lost to the applicant. If the intention were to lay down that the payment of Rs. 10/- shall be in addition to the renewal fee already paid for a period commencing on 1. 4. 1960 the rule would have provided for the validity of the certificate on 1. 4. 60 as it would have by implication meant that renewal after 31. 3. 1960, was to be a factor for attracting this provision. Hence the rule as it stands is not capable of any equivocation. It clearly lays down that certificates valid on 31st March, 1960, if not otherwise cancelled, shall continue to be valid for purposes of sec. 6 if a sum of Rs. 10/- is paid before 30. 11. 1960. The word "lump sum" has been introduced by the Sales Tax Officer of his own accord and finds no mention! in the rule itself. The rule should be interpreted according to the plain meaning of the words used in it. It is abundantly clear therefrom that the rule as it stands does not demand any renewal for a period commencing on 1. 4. 1960, and any fee realised in that behalf by the department should be credited towards payment under the rule. We, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the order of the lower court and remand the case to it with the direction that as a sum of Rs. 10/- has already been paid under the rule action should be taken as provided therein. .;