V. K. SINGHAL, J. - (1.) THE assessee has preferred this revision under section 15 of she Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 read with section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 against the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal, dated 17. 5. 1986 for the assessment year 1975-76 raising the following three questions of law :- (i) Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal is correct in holding that the rate of Central Sales Tax Act applicable on inter-state sales of copper wire rods of Rs. 10,53,327. 67 will be 4% w. e. f. 27. 09. 1975 the date of the notification No. F. 5 (25) FDCT/72-21 and not from 21. 11. 75 the date of corrigendum Notification No. F5 (25) FDCT/72-74? (ii) Whether the concessional rate of tax granted by the notification F. 5 (25) FDCT/72-1, dated 26. 4. 72 has been deleted vide notification No. F. 5 (25) FDCT/72-21 dated 27. 9. 1975 or by the corrigendum notification No. F. 5 (25) FDCT/72-24 dated 21. 11. 1975? (iii) Whether the Tribunal has erred in not dealing with the petitioner's contention that the proper remedy under the facts and circumstances of the case was under section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and not under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act ?
(2.) BRIEFS facts of the case are that the assessment of the assessee under Section 9 was finalised on 5. 10. 1979 and tax was levied at the rate of 1% on the sale of copper wire/rods. The assessing authority thereafter issued notice under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act read with Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act on the ground that the concession of reduced rate of 1 % was withdrawn on 27. 09. 1975 and, therefore, tax should have been charged at the rate of 4%. While issuing notification on 27. 09. 1975, which was issued under Sec. 8 (5) of the CST Act, the number of the notification, which was sought to be amended was F. 2 (25) FDCT/72-21, whereas the correct number was F. 5 (25) FDCT/72-21. This mistake was corrected by another notification dated 21. 11. 1975. An objection was raised by the assessee before the assessing authority that since there is a mistake in the noti-fication of typing '2' instead of '5', the notification would be effective from 21st Nov. 1975. The assessing authority has not accepted the contention and levied the tax of the difference rate of 3%. An appeal was preferred against the said order. The appellate authority came to the conclusion that there was no notification having No. F. 2 (25) FDCT/72-21 dated 26. 4. 1972 and, therefore, the only notification, which was issued and published in the gazette was F. 5 (25) FDCT/ 72 and as such the assesses is not entitled for the benefit of subsequent notification issued on 21. 12. 1975. A revision was preferred to the Board of Revenue which was subsequently transferred to the Sales-tax Tribunal and the Sales Tax Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was only a typing mistake and as such no interference in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) is required. The second appeal was rejected. The submission of Mr. Mehta on behalf of the assessee is that the notification, which has been issued on 21. 11. 1975 has corrected the number and, therefore, the notification dated 27th September is not enforceable. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Bombay High Court in Swati Chemicals vs. Collector of Customs (1) and Union of India vs. GTC Industries Ltd. (2) wherein it has been held that the mere printing of the official gazette containing relevant notification without making the same available for circulation and pulling it for sale to public will not amount to the notification. Both these judgements have no relevance because these judgments are not dealing with a situation where on account of typing mistake, a corrigendum was issued subsequently. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of Emyemmi Ganur Spinning Mills Ltd. vs. State of A. P. (3) and Kali Ram Ram Kumar vs. Sales Tax Officer In these cases it has been held that the notification will come into force from the date of its publication in the gazette and the Government cannot rescind the notification retrospectively. Mr. Bafna has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1979 SC 349 (5) and submitted that the notification issued on 27. 09. 1975 was clear and it was only a typing mistake and there was no such notification as F. 2 (25) FDCT/72 and the intention of the delegated authority was very clear. The notification could have been understood clearly and correctly by reading it fully and since the notification was only curative, it should be deemed to have only corrected the typing/printing mistake. I have considered over the matter. The delegated authority has no power to issue notification retrospectively unless it has so been authorised by the State Legislature. It is not a case where any exemption has been withdrawn retrospectively. The concession, which was available in respect of rate of tax on the sale of copper wire/rods in the notification issued under Section 8 (5) on 26. 04. 1972 was amended on 27. 09. 1975. There may be a typing/printing mistake while putting the figure '2' instead of '5' in the said notification. Had there been any notification bearing No. F. 2 (25) FDCT/72, the position would have been different. But no such notification of that number was issued or existing and it was only a corrigendum or correction in the notification not affecting the language or substantive matter in the notification. The notification dated 27. 9. 1975 was not in-operative. If a commodity has been taken out from the purview of Section 8 (5) of the C. S. T. Act and the sale is covered against 'c' form then the rate of tax as prescribed under Section 8 (1) of the Act shall be applicable and, therefore, the correction, which has been made will not confer any right on the assessee not to pay the tax at the correct rate. The decision given by the Sales-Tax Tribunal does not require any interference. Since the third question was not raised before no Tribunal decision is given there on.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, the revision is dismissed. No order as to costs. .;