A notification issued under a statute declaring a certain exemption from tax is ineffective if no rules have been made under the statute to prescribe the manner in which the exemption is to be applied.

Judgment

KAPUR, J. : The appellants are father and son carrying on business in vegetable ghee at Aligarh. They along with Romesh, the second son of appellant Jagannath Prasad were prosecuted under S.14(d) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. (Act 15 of 1948), hereinafter called the Act and under S. 471 read with S. 468 and S. 417 of the Indian Penal Code. They were all acquitted of the charge under S. 468. Jagannath Prasad was convicted under Ss. 471 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code and S.14 (d) of the Act and was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment under S. 471, to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under S. 417 and to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under S. 14(d) of the Act. Bhagwan Das was convicted under S. 14(d) of the Act and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- Romesh was acquitted. The sentences passed on Jagannath Prasad were concurrent. Their appeal to the Sessions Judge was dismissed and in revision to the High Court Jagannath Prasad was acquitted of the offence under S.417 of the Indian Penal Code but the other convictions and sentences were upheld. Against this judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad the appellants have come to this Court by special leave.

2. The facts leading to the appeal are these: In 1950-51, the firm of the appellants purchased vegetable ghee valued at about Rs. 3 lacs from places outside the State of U. P. in the name of four fictitious firms. The firm made its return for that Year to the Sales Tax Officer, Aligarh, and did not include the sale proceeds of these transactions on the ground that they had purchased them from these four firms who were supposed to be carrying on business in Hathras, Aligarh, and other places in U. P. By thus not including the proceeds of the sales of these transactions the firm evaded payment of sales tax for that year on those transactions. The return of sales tax made by the firm was accepted by the Sales Tax Officer with the consequence that the sale of goods covered by those transactions was not taxed. A complaint was made against the Sales Tax Officer in regard to these transactions; an enquiry was held with the result that the appellants and Romesh were prosecuted and convicted as above stated. In the High Court there was no controversy about the facts i.e., the finding of the courts below that the appellants firm purchased vegetable ghee from outside U. P. and did not show the sale proceeds of the sale of those goods on the ground that they had been purchased from inside the State of U. P. when in reality they had been purchased from outside the State, that the statements made by the appellant Jagannath Prasad before the Sales Tax Officer were false and that the bill produced by him before the Sales Tax Officer were forged. The conviction was challenged on grounds of law alone.

3. Before us five points were raised: (1) that no sales tax was exigible on these transactions under S. 3A of the Act in 1950-51 and liability arose by the amendment of the Act in 1952 which gave retroactive operation to the section and became applicable to sales in dispute and therefore there could be no prosecution under an ex post facto amendment; (2) the trial of the appellants was illegal because of want of complaint by the Sales Tax Officer under S. 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code; (3) there was no offence under S. 14(d) of the Act; (4) forged invoices were produced by appellant Jagannath Prasad because they were called for by the Sales Tax Officer and therefore it cannot be said that they were used by the appellant and (5) the Sales Tax Officer having accepted the invoices as genuine no prosecution could be entertained in regard to these invoices.

4. Now the appellants cannot be prosecuted on the basis of any amendment subsequent to the date of the alleged offence committed by them. Both parties are agreed on that and therefore we have to see the Act as it stood on the date when the offence is alleged to have been committed. According to the charge