ORDER
V.K. Singhal, J.
1. Petitioner has challenged the order under Section 21(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated February 20, 1998 for the period 1994-95 under Karnataka Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The revisional powers were exercised considering that the order of the assessing authority is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as the Notification dated June 19, 1991 restricted the benefit of exemption on the additional capacity created by the old unit. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Notification dated June 19, 1991 published in Gazette on November 21, 1991 has given the condition that the amount of tax exemption shall be limited to the amount spent as investment for expansion/ diversification/modernisation, etc. Clause (c) of Explanation II has not restricted or changed the mode of calculation of the exemption. The disputed words are “for the purpose of calculating the amount of tax exemptions, the amounts of tax exempted under this notification and Notification No. CI. 138. SPC. 90, dated September 27, 1990, shall be included.”
The Notification dated September 27, 1990 has restricted the exemptions to incentives and concessions which could be availed for investment made for expansion or diversification or modernisation to limit to the extent of the additional capacity created of such investment. The two notifications thus are at variance. In the earlier notification, the additional capacity created by investment itself is the basis for calculation of exemption, while the Notification dated June 19, 1991 refers to the amount spent as investment. The amount spent on investment is not restricted to the additional capacity created. The learned Government Advocate has pointed out that Clause (c) of the Explanation II should be interpreted in the manner so that the restriction of the additional capacity incorporated in the Notification dated September 27, 1990 is adopted for the purpose of Notification dated June 19, 1991.
2. I have considered over the matter. The language which has been used in the Notification dated June 19, 1991 alone is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the tax exemption. In Clause (a) of Explanation II, it is the amount spent as investment which is ligible for tax exemption and this has no reference to the additional capacity created. Clause (c) of the Explanation II does not say that the restriction imposed in the Notification dated September 27, 1990 shall be incorporated in the Notification dated June 19, 1991. It is only mentioned that the amount of exemption shall be taken into consideration. The deficiency in the language of the notification cannot be fulfilled by the courts nor even by the argument of the learned Government Advocate. The Notification dated June 19, 1991 has not placed any restriction regarding additional capacity created for the purpose of exemption and it is only the amount spent on the investment which is the criteria for calculating exemption. Clause (c) of Explanation II has not placed restriction on additional capacity created but has only mentioned that in calculating the amount of tax exemption, the amount of tax exempted under Notification dated September 27, 1990 shall also be included. This is with a view that if a unit after availing the benefit or during the course of availing the benefit of Notification dated September 27, 1990 has further expanded then the amount of exemption under Notification dated June 19, 1991 will be after adding the benefit of exemption under Notification dated September 27, 1990 and thus the benefit under the two notifications have to be clubbed together. The conditions of Notification dated September 27, 1990 have not been adopted by Notification dated June 19, 1991. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner is quashed.
Petitions are accordingly allowed.