RAJESH BALIA, J. - (1.) A short issue is raised in this petition about the interpretation of notification granting exemption under section 4 (2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 vide notification dated 8th March, 1988. The relevant extract of the notification is reproduced : " Notification No. F. 4 (5) FD/gr. IV/88-28, Jaipur, dated 8th March, 1988. S. O. 259.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (Rajasthan Act 29 of 1954), the State Government being of the opinion that it is expedient in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts from tax under the said Act the sale and purchase of the following goods, namely :- 1. All kinds of footwear not manufactured or marketed by large scale or medium scale industries up to the value of Rs. 20. Note.- Any industry with capital investment in plant and machinery exceeding Rs. 35 lacs shall be deemed to be a large scale/medium scale industries. "
(2.) THE issue relates to liability to be taxed in respect of footwear manufactured by small-scale industries up to value of Rs. 20 under the Central Sales Tax Act in pursuance of the aforesaid notification Under section 8 (2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act if any part of turnover of a dealer relates to the sale of any goods which under Sales Tax Act of the State Government exempted generally or is subject to tax generally at a rate lower than 4 per cent the tax payable under Central Sales Tax Act shall be nil or as the case may be shall be calculated at the lower rate. The issue arising in the case is whether the aforesaid exemption is to be treated as an exemption "generally" to the goods and dealers covered by the exemption or is to be treated as conditional exemption not resulting in any benefit under section 8 (2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioners contend that the exemption by fixing a limit to the value of the goods up to which exemption is granted under the notification is exemption granted generally and unconditionally in respect of such classified goods. Learned counsel for the Revenue urges that the fixing of upper limit on the value of goods amounts to condition therefore no benefit can be availed under section 8 (2-A), counsel for the Revenue also urges that even limiting of exemption to small-scale industries amounts to a condition of exemption. It may be noticed that section 4 (2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act authorises the State Government to exempt from tax the sale or purchase of any goods or class of goods or any person or class of persons on such condition and on payment of such fee as may be specified in section 4 (2), Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, which reads as under : " 4 (2) Where the State Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do, the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette (exempt, whether prospectively or retrospectively) from tax the (sale or purchase) of any goods or class of goods or any person or class of persons on such conditions and on payment of such fee as may be specified in the notification. " Perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that providing condition is something different from defining the goods or class of goods or the person or class of persons for the purposes of grant of exemption under section 4 (2 ). The notification of exemption giving out the criteria for identifying the goods or class of goods or person or class of persons chosen for exemption under notification cannot be read as condition for grant of exemption. It is after the goods and or the dealer in respect of whom exemption has been granted are identified, if something more is required to be accomplished or done before the exemption can be claimed then only such requirement be considered as conditions for exemption. Because certain facts are required to be established to identify the goods or class of persons by itself does not amount to condition of exemption. In such cases when once class of goods or class of dealers are identified in terms of the requirement of notification the same are entitled to exemption generally, if nothing more is required. In my opinion the aforesaid notification relates to exemption to the class of goods, namely, footwear up to value of Rs. 20 which are manufactured by the class of persons namely small-scale industries which have been made eligible for the exemption generally. Once the goods and the dealer are identified in accordance with notification reproduced above, the exemption is unconditional and must be held to be a general exemption so as to attract the provisions of section 8 (2-A) of the Central Act.
(3.) I am fortified in my above conclusion by two decisions of the Supreme Court. In Pine Chemicals Ltd. v. Assessing Authority [1992] 85 STC 432 the Jammu and Kashmir Government has granted exemption from State sales tax to large and medium scale industries both on raw material and finished products for a period of five years from the date of unit goes into production. While dealing with question whether the benefit of exemption enured under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act the court observed as under : " The facts which the dealer has to prove to get the benefit of the Government orders are intended only to identify the dealer and the goods in respect of which the exemption is sought and they are not conditions or specifications of circumstances relating to the turnover sought to be exempted from payment of tax within the meaning of those provisions. The specified circumstances and the specified conditions referred to in the explanation should relate to the transaction of sale of the commodity and not identification of the dealer or the commodity in respect of which the exemption is claimed. These conditions relating to identity of the goods and the dealer are always there in every exemption and that cannot be put as a condition of sale. The specified circumstances and the specified conditions referred to in the explanation should be with reference to the local turnover of the same dealer who claims exemption under section 8 (2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act. " The same view was reiterated in Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1993] 89 STC 473 (SC ). The court observed as under : " The facts which the dealer has to prove to get the benefit of the Government orders are intended only to identify the dealer and the goods in respect of which the exemption is sought and they are not conditions or specifications of circumstances relating to the turnover sought to be exempted from payment of tax within the meaning of those provisions. " In view of the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the Revenue that confining exemption to small-scale industry to footwear worth Rs. 20 are condition of exemption cannot be accepted. As a result notice issued under section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act read with section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act and the order of reassessment passed thereafter solely on the ground that the exemption under the aforesaid notification had wrongly been granted under the Central Sales Tax Act in the original assessment cannot be sustained as there was no foundation for reopening the assessment on the existing material. ;